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.
S-21-04 – GLENN BOTT –
STEEP SLOPE VARIANCE FOR HOME LOCATED ON CENTER ST. BLOCK 10501, LOT
21 IN R-3 ZONE
ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Denied: May 18, 2005
Memorialized: June 1, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF GLENN BOTT
STEEP
SLOPE SITE PLAN APPLICATION
BLOCK
10501, LOT 31
APPLICATION
NO. S-21-04
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.
S-8-05 – DELL
AVE. PARK – SITE PLAN
FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE LOCATED ON DELL AVE. BLOCK 7171, LOTS 17 & 18 IN I-3-
ZONE
ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: May 4, 2005
Memorialized: June 1, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF DELL PARK PROPERTIES, INC.
PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
BLOCK
7101, LOTS 17 & 18
APPLICATION
NO. S-8-05
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.
AGENDA
S-18-01 – EXTENSION FOR
PRUDENT PUBLISHING FROM CARLETON KEMPH ESQ.
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.
M-4-05 – STEPHEN &
THERESA SLIASKY – CONCEPT FOR SUBDIVISION ON LARSEN LANE, BLOCK 13201, LOT 9 IN
R-1 ZONE
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.
M-3-04 – MARK TUCCI –
SUBDIVISION FOR TWO LOTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON SECOND ST. BLOCK 2611, LOT 12
IN R-2/R-4 ZONE
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.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
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.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
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.
S-7-05 – PRIMAX – SITE PLAN
FOR AUTO PARTS STORE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 6502, LOT 18 IN B-2 ZONE
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
lm/