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, Richard Zoschak, Jim Rilee, Michael Shadiack, Lisa Voyce.  Joseph Schwab arrived at 8:40 p.m.


ABSENT:  Teresa DeVincentis, Charles Bautz, Steven Alford.


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


Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary.


Minutes of 4/20/05 and 5/4/05


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; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.






                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                                   RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION


  Denied:  May 18, 2005

 Memorialized:  June 1, 2005




BLOCK 4101, LOT 9



WHEREAS, Mark Lisa (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning Board") for minor subdivision approval on May 12, 2004; and


WHEREAS, the Applicant has failed to appear for a number of scheduled hearings and/or has failed to submit required information and/or plan revisions.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby deny the application without prejudice.


The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting of May 18, 2005.




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


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




                                               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:  James McArdle


2.  Application Number:                                      S-25-04


3.  Property Identification:  Block 7101, Lot 25


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



5.  Major Soil Permit Approval Date5/18/05


6.  Effective Date5/18/05


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): 


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 10/13/04; (2) soil movements stockpile plan by Morris Engineering revised to 10/13/04; (3) earthwork calculations by Morris Engineering dated 10/13/04; and (4) reports of the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 5/11/05.


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

1.             The Applicant intends to export 3,253 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil.


2.             The Applicant proposes to relocate within the site 3,253 c.y. of soil.


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


4.             The route of truck travel to/from Applicant's site from the borrow site/to the disposal site will be:  W. Dewey Avenue to Main Street to Route 15 out of the Township.


5.             The Applicant has agreed to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Planning Board Engineer dated 5/11/05.


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:  N/A.


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 based on quantity of soil moved at the rate of 15 cents per cubic yard of material moved.


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:  W. Dewey Avenue to Main Street to Route 15 out of the Township.


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 - $488.00 ($0.15/cy

Times 3,253 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.


8.             Prior to earthwork Applicant shall demarcate the conservation easement in the rear of the lots with silt fence.


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. Sweeney seconded. 


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




                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                                   RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION


  Denied:  May 18, 2005

 Memorialized:  June 1, 2005




BLOCK 10501, LOT 31



WHEREAS, Glenn Bott (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning Board") for steep slope site plan approval on May 10, 2004; and


WHEREAS, the Applicant has failed to appear for a number of scheduled hearings and/or has failed to submit required information and/or plan revisions.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby deny the application without prejudice.


The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting of May 18, 2005.


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


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




                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                                   RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION


Approved:  May 4, 2005

 Memorialized:  June 1, 2005




BLOCK 7101, LOTS 17 & 18



WHEREAS, Dell Park Properties, Inc. (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning Board") for preliminary site plan approval on 10/26/04; and


WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on 1/5/05; and


WHEREAS, public hearings were held on 2/16/05, 3/16/05 and 5/4/05, notice being required, at which time the Planning Board rendered its decision on the application; and


WHEREAS, it being determined that the Applicant has complied with all of the rules, regulations and requirements of the Roxbury Township Land Development Ordinance and that all of the required provisions of the compliance have been filed with the Planning Board; and


WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony and documentary evidence produced by the Applicant and by the Planning Board staff:


1.  The subject property consists of 6.33 acres (275,611 square feet) located in the I-3 Limited Industrial District.  The site fronts on Dell Avenue to the west.  Land owned by County Concrete adjoins the property to the north and contains an access road to the municipal garage and recycling center.  Further to the north is additional County Concrete land utilized for quarry activity.  The northerly property line serves as the I-3/RR Rural Residential (single family dwelling on 3 acre lot) zone boundary.  Located to the east and south are I-3 zoned lands developed with industrial buildings.  Located across Dell Avenue is I-10 zoned land containing the vacated Kenvil Newcrete industrial facility.


The Applicant’s property along the Dell Avenue frontage contains broken parking lot pavement associated with the former Kenvil Newcrete facility.  Roughly two-thirds of the site is wooded.  No structures exist on the parcel and the site has no public sewer or water.


Among other uses, the I-3 District allows offices, warehouses, manufacturing, wholesale material supply yards and contractor yards with bulk storage of materials and equipment.  Outdoor bulk storage is permitted in the I-3 District as an accessory use when located behind the building and conforming to side and rear yard setbacks.


The Applicant seeks preliminary major site plan approval with variances and design waivers to construct a one-story 22,000 square foot flex office/warehouse building.  The new building is speculative and therefore the ultimate breakdown of office use to warehouse use is unknown.  However, at this time the Applicant anticipates 4,000 square feet of office space and 18,000 square feet of warehouse.  Forty-five parking spaces (38 constructed, 7 banked) will service the building.  The rear of the property will be utilized for outdoor storage set back 100 feet from the RR District zone line and municipal recycling center access road.  Outdoor storage will be enclosed by a chain link fence with slats.  A stormwater management infiltration basin will be located within this area.  Floor area ratio is 8% (25% permitted) and impervious coverage is 50.9% (55% permitted).  The site will be serviced by private well and septic as this location is well beyond the reach of public sewer and water lines.


2.  In support of its application, the Applicant submitted preliminary site plans consisting of 10 sheets prepared by Ritter & Plante Assoc. bearing a revision date of 4/13/05.  The Applicant also submitted architectural plans prepared by Michael Bengis bearing a revision date of 3/29/05, a Tree Replacement Plan prepared by Ritter & Plante revised 4/13/05, a Development Impact Statement prepared by Ritter & Plante dated 9/22/04, a Wildlife Survey prepared by Ecol Science dated 7/22/04, a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Gary Dean dated 7/26/04, and a survey prepared by Edward Secco dated 9/22/04.  Reports concerning the application were submitted by the Township Planner, Russell Stern, dated 2/16/05 (partial draft), 3/10/05 (updated 4/22/05) and 3/15/05 (updated 4/22/05) and by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 2/16/05 (updated 4/28/05). Reports concerning the application were also submitted by the Township Fire Official, Michael Pellek, dated 1/21/05, and the Township Police Department’s Traffic Safety Bureau, Ptl. Gregg Prendergast, dated 1/28/05, and the Township Tax Assessor, Penni Corica, dated 1/26/05. 


3.  At the public hearing of 2/16/05, the Applicant was represented by Lawrence S. Berger, Esq.  The Applicant’s Planner George Ritter testified that the Applicant proposed to instruct a flex office/warehouse with outdoor storage to the rear on a 6.3 acre parcel located on North Dell Avenue.  The witness stated that the building would comprise 22,000 square feet, consisting of 4,000 square feet of office and 18,000 square feet of warehouse space.  He testified that the tenant for the building was unknown at the current time.  Mr. Ritter introduced Exhibit A-1, a rendered version of the existing features of the site, and Exhibit A-2, a rendered version of the site plan.  He stated that the site would be serviced by private well and septic.  He introduced as Exhibit A-3 an architectural sketch of the proposed building.  The witness stated that the site plan was consistent with Township ordinances and the zoning requirements for the I-3 district.  Mr. Ritter noted that variances were being requested with respect to parking in the front yard, for which the Applicant proposed 30%, while the ordinance maximum is 25%.  He also noted that a variance was requested for steep slope disturbance and with respect to the 50-foot landscape buffer required adjacent to a residential zone.  The witness also discussed two design waivers.  He stated that improvements to North Dell Avenue were proposed for a 15-foot half width, while the ordinance requires a 20-foot half width.  He noted that such improvements would match the previous approvals for the western side of Dell Avenue.


With respect to the prior use of the property, Mr. Ritter testified that the front portion of the lot had been paved for use as parking for the property located to the west of Dell Avenue.  He stated that there were no indications of any other prior structures on the site.  In response to a question from the Board, the Applicant’s principal Mr. Ronald Petillo stated that there were three monitoring wells on the site which had been capped and that a No Further Action letter had been issued by the DEP before the conveyance of the property.  The Board Attorney Mr. Germinario requested to receive a copy of the No Further Action letter, which was subsequently submitted by Mr. Berger under cover of a letter dated 3/22/05.  In response to a question regarding the differing driveway widths proposed, Mr. Ritter explained that the Applicant intended to use the wider northerly driveway (30 feet) for larger trucks, and the narrower southerly driveway (24 feet) for smaller vehicles.


The Applicant’s traffic expert Gary Dean testified that the proposed use would generate approximately 22 trips per hour with one truck delivery per hour at the peak maximum.  He opined that the use would be consistent with the proposed right-of-way width of 30 feet, and the 40-foot right-of-way width would just provide a wider shoulder.  Mr. Bodolsky indicated that he had no problem with the requested design waiver with respect to right-of-way width.  The Applicant’s Engineer David Plante testified with regard to the design of the two proposed stormwater detention basins.  He testified that the larger basin to the rear would pick up stormwater runoff from the site itself, whereas the smaller basin along Dell Avenue would pick up runoff from the road.  The larger basin would be 100% infiltration, while the smaller one would have a forebay to settle out road sediment so as not to clog the detention basin.  With respect to the smaller basin adjoining Dell Avenue, the witness testified that the Applicant proposed to install topsoil over the sand base for esthetic purposes and to plant the topsoil with grass.


At the conclusion of the Applicant’s testimony, the Chairman opened the hearing to public comments and, there being none, closed the public portion and adjourned the hearing.


4.  The public hearing of the application continued at the Board’s meeting of 3/16/05, at which time the Applicant was again represented by Lawrence S. Berger, Esq.  The Applicant’s Planner George Ritter addressed the comments contained in Mr. Stern’s report of 3/10/05.  He testified that there would be no phasing of the proposed site plan.  With respect to the requested steep slope variance, the witness introduced as Exhibit A-4 a variance site plan dated 3/14/05.  Referring to the Exhibit, the witness testified that the location of areas of steep slopes created by piles of material and fill disposed of when the parking lot was built on the site.  Mr. Ritter testified that there were no natural slopes on the site, and therefore their preservation of these slopes would serve none of the purposes of the ordinance.  With respect to the requested variance relief from the requirement of the 50-foot landscaped buffer adjacent to the adjoining residential zone to the north, Mr. Ritter indicated that the plans would be revised to remove the detention basin from the buffer area, but that the Applicant would still request that some parking stalls be allowed to encroach in the buffer.  He testified that the Applicant was willing to do additional landscaping to screen the encroachment.  He argued that the variance would be minimal and would improve circulation on the site.  After discussion, he indicated the Applicant would be willing to bank eight of the proposed parking spaces to further reduce the buffer encroachment variance.  With respect to screening of the outdoor storage area, Mr. Ritter indicated that the Applicant would satisfy the Township Planner’s concerns regarding this, and would propose vinyl cladding on the chain link fence.


Concerning the requested variance relief for parking areas in the front yard, Mr. Ritter noted that the proposal was above the 25% limit by approximately 3,000 square feet.  He opined that it was important to have a wide access drive for trucks and that loop circulation within the site would improve the overall site efficiency.  With respect to the requested variance relief concerning the setback of the parking aisles from the right-of-way and the property line, Mr. Ritter stated that this was necessary to transition the driveway from the front yard to the side yard and that the encroachment was de minimis, involving an area of only approximately 100 square feet.  The witness indicated that the Applicant would agree to install Belgian block curbing along the entire frontage of North Dell Avenue, thus eliminating the need for a design waiver in that regard.  Mr. Ritter’s testimony also indicated that the design waiver for parking had been eliminated by relocating the northerly parking area and banking seven out of the proposed forty-five parking stalls.  He also testified that the design waiver with respect to the materials for the trash/recycling enclosure had been eliminated, and that a board-on-board wood enclosure would be specified.  Mr. Ritter explained that the design waiver with respect to the 2-foot height of light stanchions was being requested in the storage area so that the stanchions would not be damaged by truck traffic.  With respect to lighting along the front building elevation, it was agreed upon that the Applicant would utilize decorative bollards instead of soffit lights.


At the conclusion of the Applicant’s testimony, the Chairman opened the hearing to public comments and, there being none, closed the public portion and adjourned the hearing.


5.  The hearing of the application was concluded at the Board’s meeting of 5/4/05, at which time Lawrence S. Berger, Esq. again represented the Applicant.  Mr. Ritter testified that the plan had been modified since the last hearing to reduce the width of the detention basin so as to increase the buffer area adjoining the residential zone to 50 feet per the ordinance.  He indicated that the parking had also been relocated out of the buffer area.  With regard to the tree replacement plan, he noted that the number of replacement trees had been reduced to 427 as a result of the plan modifications.  The witness introduced as Exhibit A-5 the revised landscape plan presented at the last hearing and as Exhibit A-6 the currently proposed landscape plan dated 5/4/05.  He identified as Exhibit A-7 a landscape plan dated 5/4/05 depicting off-site landscaping.  He testified that the current plan calls for 271 replacement and street trees on the subject property.  He explained that A-7 shows 364 on-site replacement trees and additional landscaping on the abutting property on the westerly side of Dell Avenue.  He indicated that the additional 63 trees would be planted along the strip running from Dell Avenue along the railroad track on Mr. Petillo’s other property.  It was agreed upon that the additional landscaping on the abutting property would be included in the landscaping bond.  The Applicant further agreed that, should these additional 63 trees on the abutting property ever be removed, they would be replaced on a one-for-one basis.


The Applicant then addressed the remaining open items in Mr. Bodolsky’s updated report of 4/28/05.  Mr. Berger indicated that the Applicant would agree to provide an easement to the Township to discharge into the front detention basin, but requested that the filing of such an easement be a condition of final site plan approval.  He agreed that a draft of the easement language would be submitted to the Township and Planning Board Attorneys prior to the signing of the preliminary site plan drawings.  Mr. Berger also indicated that the Applicant would agree to connect to a public water line once such a line and a water supply became available.  With respect to the outdoor storage area, it was agreed that the Applicant would retain the option of either gravel or asphalt surfacing.  With respect to the repaving of Dell Avenue to the center line, the Board determined to grant a waiver in this regard considering that the condition of the road surface was not attributable to this Applicant’s activities.  The Applicant indicated that it would install curb piece heads on stormwater inlets on Dell Avenue to conform to the new State stormwater regulations.


Regarding the issue raised by Mr. Bodolsky regarding the permeability rate of basin #2, Mr. Plante indicated that the Applicant would perform additional permeability tests to confirm the high percolation rate claimed in their design.  He agreed that if the percolation rate was not confirmed by their new data, they would modify the site plan to increase the size of the basin so as to eliminate any overflow from a 25-year storm.  The Applicant agreed to comply with all other open comments in Mr. Bodolsky’s report.  A question was raised regarding the necessity of a waiver from the sampling requirements of the tree ordinance.  Mr. Ritter stated that the trees on the site were very uniform and that a smaller sample was therefore representative.


At the conclusion of the Applicant’s testimony, the Chairman opened the hearing to public comments and, there being none, closed the public portion of the hearing.  A motion was made to conditionally approve the application based on the recommendations contained in the reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky, as modified and supplemented in the course of the hearings, which motion was duly seconded and favorably acted upon.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the preliminary site plan as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove.  In connection with this approval the following variance and design waiver relief is hereby granted.


A.  A variance is granted from Section 13-7.818 as the application exceeds the maximum area of permitted steep slope disturbance for the overall tract.  The steep slopes are located in the center of the property and are essentially unavoidable if the property is to be developed as zoned.  The Development Impact Statement and Applicant’s testimony indicates that these slopes were created by previous earth movement activity.  The Board finds that granting this relief does not involve disturbance of natural features which the ordinance was intended to protect.


B.  A variance is granted from Section 13-7.21A01 as a continuous 50 foot wide landscape buffer is not provided along the northerly property line.  The Applicant has revised its plans to minimize the encroachment into the 50-foot buffer area and will provide additional screening.


C.  A variance is granted from Section 13-7.3002D10a as no more than 25% of the front yard area shall be used for off-street parking, aisles and driveways while the applicant proposes 30.3%.  Significant landscaping will be provided along the Dell Avenue frontage and Dell Avenue/municipal driveway intersection.  The Board also finds that improved circulation within the site is facilitated by this relief.


D.  A variance is granted from Section 13-7.3002D10b which requires no parking/access aisles/driveway within 60 feet of a right-of-way line and no closer than 20 feet to a property line.  The Applicant proposes a 35-foot traffic aisle setback to Dell Avenue right-of-way and a 13.6 foot driveway setback to the adjoining southerly industrial property.  The Board has no objection to the right-of-way setback as it is a very small encroachment and if mostly landscaped will provide no substantial detriment.  With regard to the 20-foot wide driveway setback, Applicant has agreed to provide heavy landscaping in this area.


E.             A variance is granted from Section 13-7.816F as the outdoor storage area is visible from adjoining properties.  The Board finds that Applicant’s proposal to provide heavy landscaping and a chain link fence with vinyl clad post, rails, mesh and slats will adequately screen the area.


F.  A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.602 as a 20-foot half-width cartway is required while a 15-foot half-width cartway is proposed.  The Board finds that this is typical of cartway widths along Dell Avenue and is adequate to handle anticipated traffic.


G.  A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.610C which requires a 5.5 foot setback from the curb to sidewalk.  The Applicant proposes a 10-foot setback.  The Board has no objection as the increased setback will provide more lawn area and a safer environment for pedestrians.


H.  A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.707G as a freestanding concrete light foundation shall not exceed two inches above grade while the Applicant proposes a 2-foot height where lights are located on pavement (sheet 8).  The lights with a 2-foot exposed foundation will be the 9 proposed lights in the storage yard.  The Board has no objection if the mounting height does not exceed 18 feet from pavement.


I.  A design waiver is granted from Section 13-11 in determining the average wooded acre for trees 6 inches to 24 inches in diameter, the Applicant inventoried a much smaller area designated for disturbance than required by ordinance.  The ordinance requires an inventoried area of 67,518 square feet (50% of the treed area to be cleared) while the Applicant inventoried 7,897 square feet (5.8% of the treed area to be cleared).  Based upon this inventory, the average wooded acre contains 275 trees within the area proposed for clearing.  This small area of tree inventory necessitates a design waiver from Section 13-11.  Applicant’s testimony indicated to the Board’s satisfaction that the smaller sample area is representative of the site as a whole.



J.  A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.804B which requires shade trees installed between the sidewalk and curb.  Shade trees are proposed on the far side of the sidewalk.  The Board has no objection, since proposed location will promote a healthier environment for the shade trees.


K.  A design waiver is granted from Section 13-11.8, as 427 replacement trees are required, while the Applicant proposed 271 on-site replacement trees.  The landscape plan shall be revised to provide 364 on-site replacement trees.  The Applicant shall install the remaining 63 trees on Mr. Petillo’s property located on the opposite side of North Dell Avenue parallel to the railroad track, as depicted in Exhibit A-7.  These numbers may be modified by the Township Planner based on further review of the landscape plans.  These 63 off-site replacement trees will be included in the Applicant’s landscaping bond.  Should any of these 63 off-site trees be removed in the future, they shall be replaced on a one-for-one basis.


This approval is subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the Board’s signature of the preliminary site plan drawings:


1.  Pursuant to Section 13-7.21A02, the Applicant shall comply with Chapter XXI, Noise Control, of the Revised General Ordinances of the Township.


2.  Any proposal for communication antennae shall comply with Section 13-7.812.


3.  Applicant will provide a board-on-board trash enclosure with minimum 1” overlap of opposing boards.  Wooden gates constructed with a steel frame of 6 foot height shall be specified.


4.  Applicant shall utilize light bollards instead of soffit lights along the front building elevation.


5.  Revised drawings shall note the following in accordance with Section 13-7.816:


a.  Outdoor storage of materials and/or equipment shall only be permitted for the tenants occupying the building within the same lot as outdoor storage.



b.  Outdoor storage of materials and/or equipment shall not exceed a height of fourteen (14) feet.


6.  Zoning permits shall be required pursuant to Ordinance Section 13-2.603 for all initial tenancies and all subsequent changes of tenancy in the buildings to be constructed pursuant to this approval.  In reviewing applications for any such permits, the Zoning Officer will refer to the Township Engineer the issue of potential adverse impact on groundwater quality associated with the proposed tenant’s operation, and particularly with respect to use or storage of hazardous materials.  Should the Township Engineer find that there would be a significant risk of adverse groundwater quality impacts associated with the proposed tenant’s operation, then the Zoning Officer should condition any such zoning permit upon the proposed tenant’s implementation of recommendations by the Township Engineer as to appropriate measures and/or improvements to address said risk.  Provided, however, that if the recommended improvements are of such a scope as would require site plan review under the Ordinance, then the proposed tenant should be required to obtain site plan approval for same prior to the issuance of a zoning permit.


7.  Prior to final approval, the Applicant shall file an easement approved by the Board and Township Attorneys providing the Township with blanket rights of discharge to the detention basins adjoining North Dell Avenue.  This easement shall include both right of discharge and access, and shall be filed as a condition of final site plan approval.  The easement shall be submitted to the Board and Township Attorneys for review prior to the Board’s signature of preliminary site plan drawings.  Maintenance responsibilities shall remain with the Applicant, its successor, and/or assigns.


8.  Annual maintenance reports for the detention ponds shall be submitted to the Engineering Department.


9.  The proposed Dell Avenue roadway dedication shall be recorded prior to final approval.


10.  Site plan approval is conditioned on subsequent approval of a Major Soil Moving Permit.


11.  The subject property shall be connected to public water if and when such water becomes available, provided that a water line is extended to serve the property.


12.  All vehicle maintenance shall be conducted indoors and dispensing of fuel within the gravel storage yards shall be prohibited.


13.  The Applicant may elect to surface the outdoor storage area with either gravel or asphalt.


14.  The merger by deed of Lots 17 and 18 shall be a condition of final site plan approval.


15.  The Operation and Maintenance Manual for Dell Park II shall be modified as follows:


A.  With the introduction of staff gauges, a maximum sediment accumulation stage shall be established.


B.  Infiltration rate utilizing the staff gauges shall be monitored and recorded once per year.  A maximum tolerable infiltration rate shall be established (2 x design rate).


C.  A monthly/annual maintenance log shall be included in the Manual.  Annual submission to the Township Engineering Department shall be required.


16.  The location of staff gauges shall be shown on the Site Plan.  There shall be at least two per basin; one in the forebay and one in the main pond section.


17.  Page 4 of the Maintenance Manual shall describe the final design infiltration rate for both ponds (after application of the 2.0 safety factor) and set forth methodology for computing actual rate on a periodic basis using staff gauge readings.


18.  Bollard lights have been provided along the front walkway.  Their Isolux contribution to the overall lighting pattern shall be depicted on Sheet 5.


19.  Grate elevations, invert elevations, pipe sizes, and slopes shall be presented on the drawings for all stormwater structures.


20.  The capacity of the storm sewers in Dell Avenue shall be calculated under pressurized flow conditions since they will often discharge against the tailwater of the sediment forebay.


21.  Stormwater calculations shall be expanded to present the following information:


a.  inflow hydrographs for the Water Quality Storm and 100 year events to each detention facility;


b.  detailed routing of each storage facility for the storms in (a) above.


22.  As a condition of final approval, Applicant shall file a sight triangle easement to the Township at the intersection of Dell Avenue with the recycling center access road.  The form of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Board and Township Attorneys.


23.  Revised calculations for Basin #2 shall apply permeability rates only to the underdrain area which shall be configured to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer.


24.  The Applicant shall perform additional permeability testing of Detention Basin #2, which shall be witnessed by a Township representative and shall satisfy the Board Engineer through revised calculations that the basin can contain a 25-year storm event without overflow.  Soil logs shall be performed in the immediate area of the front detention pond.  There shall be at least two such logs with two independent permeability tests by Soil Permeability Class Rating Test procedures.  A mid-range permeability should be chosen for the design with a safety factor of 2.0 as advocated by the BMP Manual.  If the Board Engineer is not satisfied in this regard, the Applicant must resize the detention basin to contain a 25-year storm event without overflow.


                                25.  Sufficient impoundment shall be provided in the sediment forebay of Detention Basin #2 to contain the Water Quality Design Storm before release to the underground system.


                                26.  Applicant shall install curb piece heads on Dell Avenue inlets to conform to State stormwater regulations.


                                27.  Evergreen trees shall be increased to a 7 to 8’ height to be classified as a replacement tree.


                                28.  Fencing for tree protection shall be erected along the limit of disturbance line prior to tree removal.  The fencing can be modified by the Township Engineer if such a modification will feasibly preserve additional existing trees.


The grading and soil erosion and sediment control plans should be noted accordingly.


                                29.  “No Parking Fire Zone” signs and pavement markings shall be provided as directed by the Township Fire Official (letter dated January 21, 2005).


                                30.  A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained prior to tree removal.


                                31.  Pursuant to Section 13-11.13c, a performance guarantee shall be submitted in an amount not to exceed 120% of the cost of replacement trees, including off-site trees, prior to the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit.


                                32.  The detention/infiltration basins shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 13-8.808.  This includes perimeter landscaping, shade trees within the basin, screening/softening of drainage structures with landscaping and a stone veneer on basin structures.


                                33.  Additional landscaping shall be provided along the side building elevations and additional plant variety shall be added to the foundation planting.


                                34.  The Applicant’s landscape architect shall specify deer tolerant plant material.


                                35.  Landscaping shall be provided to enhance the driveways leading into the site (Sections 13-8.802A and 13-8.807M).


                                36.  Trash/recycling enclosures shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 13-8.807L.


                                37.  Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Section 13-8.806.2.


                                38.  Additional landscaping shall be provided to screen the loading area from adjoining properties per Section 13-8.807B.


                                39.  The typical height of shade trees and ornamental trees shall be provided along with caliper.


                                40.  Additional landscaping along parking lots and driveways is required pursuant to Section 13-8.807A.



                                41.  The Township Planner shall be contacted for additional landscape comments prior to revisions.


                                42.  A revised landscape plan will be submitted subject to the review and approval of the Township Planner.


43.  The following construction mitigation measures are hereby made applicable to this project:


A.            Elimination of anti-vandalism horns on equipment.


B.            Work hours shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.  No work shall take place on Sundays or holidays except on an emergency basis.  The holidays which shall be observed for purposes of this condition shall be New Year's Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.  The Applicant shall maintain personnel on site to whom incidents of noise disturbance shall be reported and said personnel shall be authorized to take measures to minimize said disturbances.  As used in this section, “work” shall include both interior and exterior construction.


C.            Anti-litter regulations shall be imposed on site.


D.            The Applicant shall establish regulations for the safe and proper transfer and transport of fuel on site.


E.             Tracking mats shall be located by the Morris County Soil Conservation District and the Township Engineer in such places as to minimize the tracking of dirt and mud onto North Dell Avenue.


F.             Clean-up and wash-down of trucks and equipment shall be required before leaving the construction site.


G.            Adequate provisions for safe control of employee parking including employees of the contractors and sub-contractors shall be required on site during construction.


H.            During construction, all construction traffic shall enter and exit the site exclusively from North Dell Avenue.


I.              Violation of any of these construction mitigation measures may result in a stop work order, which order shall remain in full force and effect until the condition is remedied to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer.


44.  As a condition of this approval, pursuant to Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the Applicant shall request and obtain from the Township Engineer a determination of their pro-rata contribution for off-tract improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.  Said contribution shall be paid in full prior to final site plan/subdivision approval.


45.  Pursuant to Section 13-7.829, the Applicant shall pay a mandatory development fee equal to two percent (2.0%) of the total equalized assessed valuation of the nonresidential development.  Fifty percent (50%) of the fee shall be posted prior to the issuance of any building permit and the remainder paid prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.


46.  Applicant shall source separate and recycle all mandated material as required by the Municipal Recycling Ordinance and the Morris County Solid Waste Management Plan both during construction and for the duration of occupancy.


47.  Applicant shall submit annual recycling tonnage reports to the Municipal Recycling Coordinator.


48.  Applicant shall meet with the Municipal Recycling Coordinator to review all recycling requirements.


49.  Drawings shall identify areas for trash and recycling enclosures and potential future expansion of these enclosures with corresponding details.


50.  In the event that future additional dumpster enclosures are needed for the site, then upon the approval of the Zoning Officer, they shall be constructed.


51.  This approval is subject to the issuance of a major soil moving permit.


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


53.  If the Soil Conservation District, Morris County Planning Board, or any other governmental body from which approval is necessary causes, through their examination of the plans as recited in this resolution, any revisions to said plans then, in that event, same shall be submitted to the Planning Board Engineer.  If the Planning Board Engineer deems said revisions to be significant, the Applicant shall return to the Planning Board for further review and approval.


54.  This approval is subject to the payment of all appropriate fees and taxes.


55.  Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6 months of the date of memorialization.  Failure on the part of the Applicant to satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval null and void.


The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting of May 4, 2005.


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


Discussion.  Changes noted and made.


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






Mr. Stern said for this extension, it should be stated in the resolution that they comply with the current Mt. Laurel contribution ordinances and COAH ordinances.


Ms. Voyce questioned why they are asking for the extension .


Ms. DeMasi said their attorney said they thought they had a two year extension the last time, and are now requesting another year. 


Mr. Germinario said usually these requests are economically motivated.


Mr. Zoschak suggested in the future the requests include a reason for the extension.


Mr. Rilee made a motion to grant the extension.  Mr. Sweeney seconded.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, no; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.




Stephen and Theresa Sliasky were present.  Mr. Sliasky stated they have a lot on Larsen Lane and a lot in Mt. Arlington on Larsen Lane.  The frontage is in Mt. Arlington.  They  have always considered subdividing and, mainly because of financial issues, would like to do that now.  The zoning is R-1, which requires about 40,000 sq. ft.  They propose 30,000 square foot lots.  The lots surrounding this are open space properties.  All the other properties are roughly 30,000 feet. 


Mr. Meyer said as a rule, this Board does not approve of undersized lots.


Mr. Sliasky said all the neighboring properties are about 30,000 square feet except for the farm.  We submitted maps of the surrounding neighborhood.  Figure 5 shows the surrounding properties.  The bigger properties to the northeast are all open space/green acres land.  The major property to the south is farmland.  The lands already subdivided are all smaller lots.  The two lots adjoining us are smaller than the ones I am proposing.  I am proposing something comparable.


Mr. Stern said the dwelling is located in Mt. Arlington, and the Roxbury lot is vacant.  What is the zoning in Mt. Arlington?


Mr. Sliasky said it is R-1, which is also one-acre minimum.


Mr. Rilee said those farms are not in the open space program. The Board does not permit substandard lots, traditionally.  It is an unimproved road.  A lot of lots have been down-zoned.  I could see if there were 5 more houses there.  More of the lots are larger.  We have to look at how it will look in the future.  It would be the two existing houses that would be out of place, not the larger lots.    Everything to the south is fairly large. 


Mr. Stern said by a matter of law, this merges with the Mt. Arlington lot.  Did you look at just a one-lot subdivision?  It would create two conforming lots.


Mr. Sliasky asked if that would require moving the town lines.


Mr. Stern said the lots have automatically merged by law.


Mr. Sliasky stated he has one deed describing the metes and bounds.


Mr. Germinario said that describes one lot.  What the planner is suggesting is dividing it into two conforming lots, rather than three.


Ms. Sliasky said our debt is bad, and this is our only asset.  We felt if we could divide it into two additional lots, we could possibly put up a home on one of the lots for ourselves and then sell our home and the other lot.  We were looking at a bigger picture than just dividing it in half.


Ms. Voyce asked if this is close to the line for the Highlands Preservation area.   Part of the goal of the Highlands Act is to keep and protect contiguous areas of open spaces in tact.   That needs to be considered.  Two conforming lots would make sense.  To create 3 nonconforming lots is pushing the envelope and is too much to do for this property.


Mr. Sliasky said he contacted DEP and they sent him a satellite photo.  The Mt. Arlington land would be harder to develop because of environmental constraints. 


Ms. Voyce said the Township has not made a decision on how to handle these lots at this time.  I am not sure we want to be making piecemeal decisions that may contradict our final decision on an overall basis


Mr. Meyer said the Board is saying that, taking into consideration the properties that are there now, they are developed as farmland.  The other two lots would be the undersized lots.  You can foresee a developer coming in for the farm across the street to divide it into 5 lots. That would not be looked on very favorably.  The applicant has the right to make application, but the feeling of the Board is that it can be subdivided into two conforming lots. 




Attorney Michael Shivietz represented the applicant. 


Mr. Meyer said this application is for a fully conforming subdivision.  The issue is drainage on the property and the issue that it was falling from the township property onto the property.  The applicant’s engineer has presented plans on how to handle stormwater.   Mr. Bodolsky has commented on that and has another report this evening.  The Board needs to be satisfied on how the stormwater is handled. 


Mr. Germinario said at the last hearing it was determined variances are necessary for detention basins within the front yard and side yard setback.


Mr. Meyer said Mr. Germinario was going to draw up an agreement in regard to the water flowing from the township onto the property.  That was done. 


Mr. Germinario said Mr. Shivietz proposed a form of agreement, and I proposed some changes.  The Board is referring to this as a potential agreement, and it would ultimately be entered into between the Tucci’s and the Township.  The Board would recommend it to the township for consideration.  Ultimately the Township Attorney and Township Council would have to approve the agreement.  Basically, it provides for the right of the Township to discharge at the current rate and volume that is now being discharged onto the property. It commits the applicant to maintain the stormwater management facilities that are part of their application, and that the owners would recognize that the discharge they are agreeing to would result in periodic flooding and/or ponding of water on the property and would accept that as a condition of the use of the property.


Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Germinario if it the amount of water needs to be quantified. 


Mr. Germinario said it is problematic to quantify it. I pointed out at the last hearing that if a future owner were to come forward to the township for violating the terms of the easement, the burden would be on them to establish the baseline flow and the increase that occurred.


Mr. Rilee asked about the drainage area.


Mr. Germinario said originally, I was going to say the township would not do anything to increase the drainage area flowing to the basin, but Mr. Bodolsky said that wouldn’t be something that would happen as a result of any township activities.  It may increase the impervious coverage that would result in greater runoff from that same drainage area.


Mr. Rilee said we are not sure exactly where the drainage area is.


Mr. Germinario said it would help if we could establish the exact extent of the drainage area on the record, however, the only really competent engineering assessment has been from Spillane engineering.  The people who testified as members of the public don’t have the competence to make an opinion as to where the drainage area begins and ends.


Mr. Bodolsky said he went on record last meeting that he does not concur with the drainage area as delineated.  It is a difficult are to delineate.  A lot of it was done by observation.  It can be defined, and then you know what drainage area everyone is dealing with.  Conversely, we could go on record that we don’t agree with the drainage area as delineated by Spillane Engineering, but whatever it is, we would not expand it.


Mr. Germinario said we probably could put that into legal language.  There are other things the town could do that would increase the flow without increasing the drainage area. 


Mr. Rilee said for most of the developments and additions, etc., we are requiring that more be done on site.  We would probably be diminishing the drainage area.


Mr. Bodolsky said if someone were to put a shed in their backyard, it wouldn’t require township action.  Theoretically, it could increase runoff.  Now, if someone comes in for a variance for an addition onto a house for sideyard setback, that would require township action.  Theoretically, it would increase runoff.  Would the applicant take out this agreement and stop the township from approving it?   If this did extend to Route 46 and you merged lots and put up a building, you would possibly increase runoff.  Given the recent history of the Board, a site plan would probably control that. 


Mr. Zoschak asked if this has been discussed with the Township Engineer’s office.


Mr. Germinario said no, but it will when the Council reviews it.  I don’t think we will have an agreement in place tonight.  I would suggest the Board simply condition any approval on the negotiation of an agreement between the applicant and the township.


Ms. Voyce said she is concerned about third party lawsuits that may occur. 


Mr. Rilee said he would like to get feedback from the Township professionals.  My suggestion would be to address the reports, have the agreement drafted, and get the feedback from the professionals before we take action.


Mr. Shivietz said they will be going over the most recently revised plans tonight, and will show a video taken by Mr. Tucci recently during a period of about 3 inches of rain.  Also, regarding the variance situation regarding the detention basin, this is not an ordinary detention basin.  What is being accomplished is that we are re-grading the property to enable the property to accept water from the surrounding township streets.  If we were just seeking to collect additional water on the site, that would be just a detention basin.  But in this situation, it is more of a community care-taking situation where we are accepting the water and dealing with it.  To impose the requirements of the variances on it is not appropriate.  I would suggest we don’t have the variances go before you,  because we are accepting water from the township, and we would submit it becomes an obligation on the part of the municipality to maintain.


Mr. Germinario said these facilities being created do meet the definition of a detention basin.  I agree that even though variances are technically required, it should be considered the purpose of the basins is not normal function.  It is largely to control water coming off the public right-or-way.  In considering the variance relief there is a substantial public benefit if they function in that regard.


Mr. Keith Appelbaum, engineer for the applicant, was present and addressed the changes that have been made to the plans since the last meeting.  He said we have re-graded the area between Second Street and the back yard at a 2% grade.  The driveway allowed for a garage to go into the side of the house.  We increased the size of the house to include the area of the driveway.  The water will be directed into drywells and not directly into the areas presented to collect water on the site.  The inclusion of the 2% grade will allow the property to accept more flow of water to the back of the site at a quicker rate from Second Street to the rear of the yard.  The house was about 27’ x 40’.  The size of the house now is 27’ x 70’. 


Mr. Stern asked if there are building plans.


Mr. Tucci said no. 


Mr. Shivietz asked Mr. Appelbaum to discuss the detention basin.


Mr. Appelbaum said the legal definition of a detention pond is to collect the water and to release it at pre-development rate.  Usually when an area is developed additional water goes to the area because of impervious cover.  In this situation, the water from the roofs are going to drywells and would be released into the ground.  In this situation, we are accepting additional water from the township beyond pre-development standards.  The pre-development 100-year flood goes beyond the property line and will go on the properties to the north, to Second Street, and will collect on the subject property.  We are actually scalping out the back yard, accepting all the water that was going onto other people’s properties, and collecting all the water on the property.  The whole area is fairly flat and has been regarded to accept water from other properties and the township property.    There is a grate in the street that is not working well because of silting.


Mr. Shivietz asked Mr. Appelbaum if there is anything in Mr. Bodolsky’s report that he would like to address further.



Mr. Appelbaum said we provided information to Mr. Bodolsky regarding the wooded area on the property now becoming grassed area.  Forested area releases less water than grassed areas.  The difference is 500 cubic feet of water.  We agree to careful handling of soils as mentioned in Mr. Bodolsky’s report.  It would require a special situation.  That can be accomplished. 


Mr. Stern asked if the curb is consistent with the curb type of the existing home.


Mr. Appelbaum said this is a concrete curb and the existing curb is asphalt.


Mr. Stern said the township standard is Belgian block.


Mr. Appelbaum said we can comply with Belgian block.


Ms. Voyce said asked what would constitute a special situation?


Mr. Appelbaum said special equipment is required to be sure there is a specific amount of pressure per square inch with the equipment.  It would require equipment with larger tracks.


Ms. Voyce asked if there are other ways to insure the careful handing of the soil.


Mr. Bodolsky said there are ways of doing it, for instance, scarification of the surface and high flotation tires.  My report is based on the fact the infiltration rate is going to be preserved.  If that is not so, there will be problems. They are agreeing to a procedure for this excavation and I would urge the township to monitor the situation. 


Mr. Zoschak asked if the testimony was that this is sand.


Mr. Bodolsky said that was the testimony.  The township did not witness the excavation of the sinkhole.  I would suggest it is sandy. 


Mr. Tucci said Mr. Henry from the engineering department witnessed the excavation of the sinkhole.


Mr. Bodolsky said the calculations the applicant provided suggest they are contributing 500 c.f. of new runoff to the back yard, but are creating 13,000 c.y. of additional storage.  As long as they don’t foul up the infiltration, the flooding in this area will be diminished.  The mere conversion of woods to grass is more than offset by the volume they are creating in the backyard, which should improve the situation.


Mr. Appelbaum said that is correct.  We are accepting a lot more water than was previously accepted and are not increasing the amount of runoff significantly.


Mr. Bodolsky said the small detention basin straddles the township property.  I believe the testimony was that the pond does not accept any runoff from Second Street or township property, and that there may be tributary area from adjoining properties.  Is that correct?


Mr. Appelbaum said there is water from the right-of-way that the detention pond is accepting.  There is water from Ward Court and from Lots 13 and 14.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if they are proposing to give the township rights to the small detention pond as well, or will it be a private facility?


Mr. Appelbaum said we will not be able to provide the 20 foot setback requirement if we were to put it all on the property.  We are accepting water beyond what was provided pre-development.


Mr. Germinario said the draft of the drainage easement didn’t define the easement area.  It is still open.  That part could be included among the town’s rights as far as discharge if there is some water coming off the right-of-way.


Mr. Bodolsky said they will need some feedback from the town.  I believe the testimony was that there is not runoff from Second Street.  The drainage areas are not well defined by the applicant’s engineer.  The low point on the curbline is not going to this front detention pond.  If anything is going there, it is a little bit of grassed area behind the curb.


Mr. Appelbaum said it is not impervious area from Second Street.


There was a 10 minute recess at 8:40 p.m.


Mr. Schwab arrived at 8:40 p.m.


Mr. Tucci showed a video he had taken of the subject property to show the extent of the flooding.  The video was taken in mid-afternoon.  He showed the video for the Board and narrated it, describing how the water was running.


The video was marked as Exhibit A-2.


Mr. Shivietz submitted the weather reports for the month of April (marked A-3).  The readings are from Budd Lake and from Morristown Airport.




Gary Simons stepped forward. He asked what some of the lines on the plans represents.


Mr. Appelbaum said the lines represent pre-development and post-development elevations. 


Mr. Simons said the water flow didn’t exist before the road was inserted.  It also comes from Route 46.  I am concerned about the blockage.  How much would it cost to do a study on rainfall?  It sounds like the town doesn’t want to do a study.  The township created the problem, and you are making an agreement that you won’t change it.


Mr. Rilee said that would have to be addressed through the township.


Mr. Simons said that issue should be resolved before a variance is granted.  They didn’t show a portion of the area on the video.


Mr. Zoschak asked if his property floods now.


Mr. Simons said it does on occasion.  The problem was that they resurfaced the road.  It comes from Route 46 and comes around my property.  It has caused damage to my property.


Mr. Meyer said the problem appears to be not related to this application.  The Township Engineer will be involved in the agreement.


Mr. Bodolsky said in his report he notes that they show the grade coming in at 99 ½ after development.  They also show a portion of Mr. Simons property is at 99.  The drawing will be modified to eliminate the minor fill Mr. Simons is referring to.  I did go to the site after the last meeting, and the drainage area is bigger than what is being depicted here.


Mr. Simons asked if a study can be done as to how much groundwater comes in.  Also, how do you know there is not a spring?


Mr. Bodolsky said their testimony was that there is no indication of groundwater in the soil profile they dug.


Mr. Simons said they should do a perk test and a water level test.  They should find out how long it takes the water to dissipate into the ground.


Mr. Appelbaum said he was not personally present when holes were dug in the area.  Mr. Spillane was there.  There was a record that there was no water in the test hole.  We are improving the situation for this gentleman and the people in the area by accepting more water than the pre-development situation.  Through our analysis of the drainage area, the 100-year flood is up to 99.99.  That continues beyond Second Street and along the property.  We are improving the situation there in regard to the 100-year flood.  In theory when we get a 100-year flood, it won’t flood Mr. Simon’s property or the properties adjacent to the applicant.  It will be contained on the property.  It is improving the situation to a high level. 


Mr. Bodolsky said he disagrees.  That all depends on the infiltration rate.  I submit that, based on the information, the flooding will subside from what it currently is.  On the recent application for Dell Park I questioned the infiltration that was being presented and suggested the applicant open the soil logs in the presence of a township representative.  I would suggest that here as well.  I would leave it up to the Board whether that should be done before approval or as a condition of approval.  This is a critical pond. 


Mr. Tucci said from an engineering point, it was done as a field test, and it was so fast that it was funny.   


Mr. Simons said it does pond there.  I would like to know the height of the water table.


Mr. Bodolsky said if there is a high groundwater table, it would come back to the Board.


Mr. Simons asked if there is a contingency plan if they break open the spring.


Mr. Appelbaum said the standard is for the bottom of the drywell to be 2 feet above the water table.  If it is above where we feel it is, we can redesign the drywells. 


Ms. Voyce said if there is a high water table, that won’t work.  A condition of approval for this would be to look at the water table, and also make sure the applicant gives us specifics in terms of what they will do regarding best management practices.  It won’t work if there is a very high water table.  Drywells do not work in water.


Mr. Simons said he hopes someday that the township may consider re-routing the water.


Mr. Zoschak said that would have to be addressed at a Township Council meeting.


Mr. Shivietz said in the minutes from March 19, 2004, it states, “Mr. Spillane stated we were here two months ago for a two-lot subdivision.  An issue at that time was a possible mine shaft depression shown on the property.  We investigated the depression and on March 25th we excavated.  It is not a mineshaft.  It is a dump hole with tree stumps, car parts.  The area down below 5 feet was sandy soil.  It is not a mine, just a depression.  This application will not affect drainage to the street.  We will add appropriate grading around the house.  I submitted photos to the staff showing what came out of the hole”. 


Mr. Behrens said it was also stated at that meeting that we had asked if the township engineer had been present at that excavation and the answer was no.


Mr. Tucci said he testified that Mr. Henry was present.


Mr. Shivietz said there was also a reference that Mr. Bodolsky said he had a report from Chris Eaton who was an engineer previously with Mr. Spillane’s office regarding the excavation and would recommend that we get a signed, sealed report.  We do have that report.


Mr. Appelbaum said the report says the investigation was on March 25, 2004, which is towards the end of the high water table season. The report says the groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 15 feet.  This excavation was done to 17 feet.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if there is a soil log.


Mr. Appelbaum said no, not a formal soil log. 


Jody LeFrance stepped forward.  She said she lives on South Second Street.  The street has to be fixed.  Right now there is a buoy in the road because of the hole in the middle of the street.  We saw the water was coming off, not going on.  The street should be fixed.


Mr. Rilee said you should take pictures and take it to the Township Council. 




Mr. Shivietz said on May 19, 2004, Mr. Tucci testified as to the excavation and stated Mr. Henry was there. 


Mr. Tucci said on April 3rd I went to the property and observed the property was dry with one small puddle in the middle of the street. 


Mr. Meyer said the applicant and Mr. Germinario need to meet further on the agreement.  The applicant can come back then to resolve the application hopefully at the next hearing.


Mr. Stern said it was suggested soil logs be taken, and a review of the easement.  


Mr. Germinario said we will revise it after discussions with the applicant and will forward it to Mr. Kobylarz and Mr. Bucco.


Ms. Voyce said the applicant also has to determine the best management practices.


The application was carried to 7/6/05.


Regarding water level tests, Mr. Meyer said that will be left up to the applicant.




Attorney Allen Goldstein represented the applicant. 


Keith D’Ambrosio, of Whitestone Associates, Inc., was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background as an environmental engineer.  He summarized his report stating the site was a gas station from the mid 1970s to 1997.  There were two spill incidents – one in 1990.  There was an investigation and the DEP issued a no further action determination in 1996.  There was another spill incident in the year 2000.  The underground storage tanks were removed and samples indicated there was no soil contamination above DEP standards, and the no further action determination was issued in July 2001.  Subsequently there have been no site activities associated with the gasoline operation.  All piping and associated storage tanks have been removed.  The letters were submitted as an attachment to a 4/6/05 correspondence.  I feel those letters are sufficient.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if Mr. D’Ambrosio’s report raised some question as to possible leakage or piping, etc. that had yet to be removed under the former pump islands.


Mr. D’Ambrosio said the fittings for the piping going vertical from the pump island still remain in place. The piping was removed immediately adjacent to the pump islands during the tank removal activities.  The actual pump island still remains on site.  Our recommendation was that the soil be screened upon removal of the pump islands.  If there was a large scale problem it would have been identified during the tank removal.  There are two existing groundwater monitoring wells on site that will require abandonment.  They are not being actively monitored, but have not been closed.  The State made the recommendation to close them.


Brett Skapinetz of Bohler Engineering stepped forward.  He said we received updated architecturals which depict some changes to the building.  The plan dated 3/2/04, revised 5/20/05 was referred to (marked A-2).  The elevations have been changed.  The façade across the back has been extended.  For the front elevation, we modified the window area by reducing the height of the window.  We will submit copies for comments from the Board and professionals.


Mr. Zoschak asked that the applicant provide a color rendering.


Mr. Skapinetz said the façade is white block with metal fascia painted red, with advance auto parts in yellow lettering.  No neon is being proposed.  We will provide color elevations.


Mr. Behrens asked if there are any local Advance Auto Parts stores that are freestanding.


Mr. Skapinetz said he believes there is one in Dover that was a store that was converted.


Mr. Rilee suggested the applicant address the professional reports, particularly traffic issues.


Mr. Goldstein said there seems to be some skepticism about the ability of the site to work based on the plans submitted.  Mr. Neal is here to describe the operation of some of the other buildings.


Mr. Neal said he is with Primax Properties and reiterated his position with Primax and the number and locations of the stores. He said Advance has agreed to use a wheelbase 40 truck.  They will not use a larger truck at this store.  They also agree they will not back off of Route 46.  All movements will be done on site.  It is a business practice of theirs to deliver at off hours and use store employees to help unload the truck.  Unloading the truck takes from 45 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes.  That happens about once a week.  Off hours would be mid morning.  Peak hours would be drive times during the week and on Saturdays.  Their peak is 15 cars per hour.  The distribution center is in Green Castle Pennsylvania and Roanoke Virginia.  They desire that the truck makes the round trip in one day. 


Mr. Rilee asked if any other stores use the 40 wheelbase trucks.


Mr. Neal said there are some.  They have agreed to the 40 wheelbase trucks.


Mr. Rilee wondered how we can be guaranteed that they won’t use a larger truck.


Mr. Neal said he is testifying to it, and they have written him a letter committing to it.


Mr. Behrens asked how the deliveries are all accomplished at off peak hours.


Mr. Neal said that is their business practice.  There are only two or three peak hours in a day.  We don’t do deliveries on Saturdays.


Mr. Bodolsky asked how many employees are on site normally.


Mr. Neal said about 6 per shift.


Mr. Goldstein asked if some parking spaces would be blocked during deliveries.


Mr. Neal said that is a common practice for Advance.  It is generally done during off peak hours and there aren’t many cars there.  Here there will also be a smaller truck.  There was concern from the professionals that this site doesn’t work.  It does work in other stores and will work here. 


Mr. Stern said even though this is off peak, all you need is one vehicle parking towards the KFC, and this scheme fails. 


Mr. Neal said the truck would pull forward, the cars would be moved, and the truck would back up.  This is very typical for Advance.  A customer probably wouldn’t park there anyway.  He would park as close as possible.


Mr. Bodolsky said the truck would be in the wrong lane right at the entrance to the site.  What happens when he is making the k turn in the wrong lane and someone wants to come into the site?


Mr. Neal said the traffic consultant will address it.  This is a scenario that would happen once a week.  The time a truck would be blocking the entrance would be 5 or 10 seconds.  From a practical standpoint I don’t believe it is an issue.  Store employees know when the truck is coming.


Mr. Stern said part of the corporate operation is for the staff to inform a customer how to make repairs.  Does the staff go out to the car on site?


Mr. Neal said they might go out and look at the car, but would not do the repairs there.  Store employees do change batteries. 


Mr. Stern said that would be a variance situation.  Parking lots are not to be used for the maintenance of vehicles.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if the Board wants the applicant’s traffic expert to return for testimony.


The Board did not require further testimony from the traffic expert.


Mr. Rilee said we are planning for this site so that it will be workable for this use, and possible future uses as well. 


Mr. Goldstein said the site has an abandoned service station on it, and there has been discussion on reducing the size of the building from Mr. Stern.  Even if we were to do that, and another retail establishment is put here, you may have the same problem.  You will never be able to police this site for that purpose.  The same argument being used here could be made for any retailer.  This is not a high traffic volume user.


Mr. Meyer said we are concerned that any property on Route 46 be developed the right way. 


Mr. Stern asked if they do oil changes.


Mr. Neal said no.


Mr. Stern said there is partial concrete paving in front of the store.  Why is that?


Mr. Neal said those are the most traffic spaces.  We actually put pigment in the concrete in the case that some of the cars leak oil.  The concrete is black and blends in with the asphalt.


The application was carried to 7/6/05.


The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:30 p.m.


                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary