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

A regular and reorganizational meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m.

 

There was a salute to the Flag.

 

REORGANIZATION

 

Ms. DeMasi announced Barbara Kinback has been appointed Alternate #2.  Ms. DeFillippo is now a permanent member.  Ms. Robortaccio has been reappointed for a 4 year term, and Mr. Crowley has been appointed to a 4 year term.

 

Ms. DeMasi asked for nominations for Chairperson.

 

Mr. Meyer nominated Gail Robortaccio.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

There were no other nominations.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Ms. Robortaccio assumed the Chair.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked for nominations for Vice Chairperson.

 

Mr. Meyer nominated Mark Crowley as Vice Chairman.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

There were no other nominations.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked for nominations for Board Secretary. 

 

Ms. Dargel nominated Dolores DeMasi.  Mr. Meyer seconded.

 

There were no other nominations.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Ms. Robortaccio read the Open Public Meetings Act.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Robert Church, Barbara Kinback, Kathy DeFillippo, Robert Kurtz, Scott Meyer, Joyce Dargel, Gail Robortaccio, Mark Crowley.  Michael  Roome arrived at 7:35 p.m.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.

 

Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary.

 

Resolution #1

 

                                                RESOLUTION

                TO PROVIDE ANNUAL NOTICE OF MEETINGS

 

                WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury, Morris County, New Jersey, must provide annual notice to all regular meetings to be held by said Board during the calendar year 2005.

 

               

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the schedule of regular meeting dates annexed hereto as Exhibit A, be and hereby declared to be the official list of dates of regular meetings to be held by the Board for the calendar year 2005, being the second Monday of each month, except for the month of October.

 

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said meetings shall commence at 7:30p.m.; unless otherwise called by the Municipal Building, 1715 Route 46, Ledgewood, New Jersey

 

EXHIBIT A

 

January 10, 2005                                     July 11, 2005

 

February 14, 2005                   August 8, 2005

 

March 14, 2005                                       September 12, 2005

 

April 11, 2005                                    October 17, 2005

 

May  9, 2005                                            November  7, 2005

 

June 13, 2005                                     December 12, 2005

 

Discussion.

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Kinback, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Resolution #2

 

                        REVISED RESOLUTION FOR NOTICES AND

          DESIGNATING  NEWSPAPERS

 

                WHEREAS,  the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury, Morris County, New Jersey, is required to select a public place for the posting of notices all regular and special meetings; and

 

                WHEREAS,  said Board must provide notice of all regular and special meetings to at least two(2) newspapers, one of which must be the official municipal newspaper.

 

                NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the public place for the posting of notices of all regular and special meetings of said Board be the bulletin board located within the Municipal Building of the municipality located at 1715 Route 46, Ledgewood, New Jersey, and

 

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all notices of the meeting of this board be furnished to the following three newspapers as designated by the Township Council.

 

Daily Record

Roxbury Register

Star Ledger

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

Roll as follows:   Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Roome, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Resolution #3

 

RESOLUTION FIXING “FEES” FOR NOTICE OF MEETING

 

                WHEREAS, N.J.S. 10:4-6 et. Seq. Known as the “Open Public Meetings Act”, provides for the fixing of a reasonable charge to be paid by any person requesting notification of meetings of the Board of Adjustment.

 

                NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury that the sum of $40.00 is hereby fixed as a fee to be paid by anyone requesting that notices of meetings of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury for the 2005 calendar year to be mailed to such person; but, as provided in N.J.S. 40:4-19, no charge shall be made to any newspaper requesting the mail of such notices to its business office.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Church seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Roome, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Resolution #4

 

                RESOLUTION OF RETAINING AN ATTORNEY AND CONSULTING

                                                                ENGINEER

 

                WHEREAS, there exists a need for the retention of an attorney and engineer by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury, and

 

                WHEREAS,  the funds are available for this purpose; and

 

                WHEREAS, Section 40:55D-71b, Article 9 of the Municipal Land Use Laws states that the Board of Adjustment may employ, or contract form and fix the compensation of legal counsel, other than the municipal attorney and experts, and other staff and services as it may deem necessary, of exceeding the amount appropriated by the governing body for its use; and

 

            WHEREAS, the Local Public Contracts Law (N.J.S.A. 40A:11-1 et.seq.) requires that the “Professional Services”; without competitive bids must be publicly advertised.

 

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury as follows:

 

                1.Larry Wiener, Esq. is retained to serve as Counsel to the Board during the year of 2005.

 

                2. Pequest Engineering/Thomas Bodolsky is retained to serve as Engineer to the Board during the year of 2005.

 

                3.  These contracts are awarded without competitive bidding as a “Professional Service” under the provisions of the Local Contracts Law because legal services and engineering services are rendered by persons authorized by law to practice their recognized professions and because such services are a qualitative nature as will not reasonably permit the drawing of specifications or the receipt of competitive bids.

 

            4.  A copy of this resolution shall be published in the official newspaper as designated by the Township Committee as required by law within ten (10) days of its passage.

 

5.  This resolution shall take effect immediately.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to appoint Larry Wiener as Counsel to the Board and Pequest Engineering/Tom Bodolsky as Board Engineer.  Mr. Roome seconded.

 

Discussion.

 

Ms. Dargel amended her motion to appoint Larry Wiener at the same fee as last year of $135 per hour and to appoint Pequest Engineer at $112 per hour. 

 

Mr. Meyer said the fees Mr. Bodolsky charges come almost entirely out of escrow funds.

 

Mr. Roome amended his second.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Roome, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

REGULAR MEETING

 

Minutes of 11/4/04

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Roome, abstain; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-74-04 – REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH – VARIANCE FOR 2 SIGNS AND CHANGEABLE LETTERS LOCATED ON EYLAND AVE. BLOCK 3005, LOT 30 IN R-2 ZONE

 

In the matter of Redeemer Lutheran Church

Case No. BA-74-04

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

                                                                                                                Approved:  December 10, 2004

                                                                                                   Memorialized :   January 10, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Redeemer Lutheran Church has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a second freestanding sign requiring “C” variances from the Sign Ordinance for premises located at 203 Eyland Avenue and known as Block 3005, Lot 30 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-1” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.909C; 13-8.915E of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. The applicant is the Luthern church located at 203 Eyland Avenue.
  2. Ed Kirchgessner and Laurie Reed, two persons affiliated with the congregation, testified at the public hearing.  The term “applicants”, as used in this resolution, refers to their testimony.
  3. The applicant was proposing to construct a second freestanding sign near the existing freestanding sign.
  4. The church is the site of a nursery school.  The additional signage would be directed at giving the public notice of the nursery school.
  5. The proposed sign was depicted on a sketch attached to the application.  The sign was designed in two parts.  The lower portion of the sign would be 12”x42” with moveable letters.  The upper portion would be 30”x42” with the name of the nursery school.
  6. The applicants testified they were unsure of the height but would comply with the 6’ height limitation.  The applicants were not sure of the exact location (setback) of the proposed sign except that same was closer than the required 10’ setback.  This sign would be located no closer than the existing sign to the setback.
  7. The applicants originally received a letter of denial from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.  At the public hearing, Mr. Stern, the municipal planner, noted that in addition to the variances noted in Mr. Potere’s 11/3/04 letter, one other variance was needed due to the fact that the sign was located less than 10’ from the front yard setback.
  8. During the public hearing, it was determined that the applicants “changeable letter sign” would need to be slightly enlarged to accommodate reasonably sized letters.  The applicant modified the application for the lower sign to increase same from 12”x42” to 18”x42”.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

1.The applicant’s request is a reasonable request.  The signage proposed by the applicant is similar to the signage on other local churches and synagogues.  A changeable letter sign will provide information to the public due to the nature of the use will not be intrusive or garish.

2.  The signage will not have a negative impact.  It will provide opportunities for safe vehicular movements and identify the uses on-site.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the   10th   day of    December 2004 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Sign is to be no higher than 6’ and no closer to the front yard setback than the existing freestanding sign.
  2. Applicant is to make arrangements with the police department to have the traffic safety officer come out and review the sign and its proposed location so as to ensure that the installation of the sign will not be a hazard to pedestrians or vehicular traffic entering and exiting the site.  No Certificate of Approval shall be issued unless and until the police department has reviewed and approved the location in accordance with this condition.
  3. As noted above, the lower changeable letter sign may be enlarged to 18”x42” with the provision that there shall be no more than 3 lines utilized for messages.  Approximate size of the letters to be 4”.

 

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Roome seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Roome, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes.

 

BA-58-04 – O’NEILL – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING BARN LOCATED ON EMMANS ROAD.  BLOCK 5701, LOT 6 IN R-R- ZONE

 

In the matter of Susan & Kevin O’Neill

Case No. BA-58-04

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

 

                                                                                Denied without Prejudice:  December 10, 2004

                                                                                                  Memorialized:   January 10, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Susan & Kevin O’Neill have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition to an existing barn requiring dimensional variances for premises located at 221 Emmans Road and known as Block 5701, Lot 6 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “RR” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.905C, 13-7.1901D8b of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Manuel Fanarjian, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  3. The applicants were proposing to construct an addition to the existing barn.  The barn would be extended to 9,300 square feet.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 9/7/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The applicants need relief from the Zoning Ordinance, as the proposed barn (an accessory structure) would exceed the permitted 50% maximum square footage of the principal structure, RTO 13-7.905C, and it appeared that the height of the barn was over the permitted 15’ height of an accessory structure.
  6. The applicants stated that they had purchased the adjoining parcel so as to enlarge his parcel.
  7. Mr. O’Neill reviewed the existing pattern of development in his neighborhood.  Other than a church, there were single-family homes in what he stated was a rural area.
  8. Mr. O’Neill stated his home was set back 450’ from the road.  He presented photo exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5, which depicted various views of the existing house and site.
  9. Mr. O’Neill noted his premises were taxed as and assessed as farmland.  The applicant stated that they utilized the site to raise, breed, and sell horses.  He typically had 10-14 horses on site.  He wanted to add an indoor riding ring and breed “Frision” horses from the Netherlands.  The new barn would accommodate the indoor area needed to breed and train the horses in “dressage”.  Mr. O’Neill noted that “dressage” was an equestrian discipline and an Olympic Event.
  10. The construction of the barn would be 9,300 square feet (2,200 existing).  He noted that a 15-foot height would not accommodate equestrian jumping.  The present barn is 19’ high and the new barn would be 22’ high.  Post construction would bring the barn to 12,000 square feet.
  11. There would be 10 horse stalls in the barn.  Lessons would be available for township youth.  Mr. O’Neill stated there would be free lessons on Saturday.
  12. Mr. O’Neill indicated there would be limited visibility of the barn.  He showed exhibits A-6 and A-7 which were depictions of the proposed barn.  He stated same would be done in a tasteful manner and not look like an “airplane hangar”.
  13. Mr. O’Neill envisioned the type of equestrian activity and breeding would not exceed 10 horses and he did not envision much more traffic to the site.
  14. Mr. O’Neill stated that the type of feed and manure decomposition system would address the question of various odors from manure.  A local garden center would take the decomposed manure.
  15. Prior to the second scheduled public hearing on 12/13/04, the application was re-visited and reviewed by the municipal planner.  The planner concluded that the proposed agricultural use was a permitted use in the RR Zone.  As such, the applicant would need site plan review.  Any related variances would be handled by the planning board, therefore, the Zoning Board lacks jurisdiction.  The Zoning Board attorney concurred in the conclusion reached by the municipal planner.
  16.  

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the application is denied without prejudice.

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Roome seconded.

 

Discussion.  Changes noted and made.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Roome, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

BA-1-05 – ROBERT MAC EWEN – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION/PORCH/GARAGE LOCATED ON MORGAN DR. BLOCK 1604, LOT 31 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Robert MacEwen was sworn in. 

 

Patricia MacEwen was sworn in.

 

Mr. MacEwen stated we would like to add a second level to our home and a two car detached garage and a front porch.  We have a growing family and need more room.  We would like to stay in this town.  We are involved in the town. 

 

Ms. Dargel said there are several variances required:  left side yard; impervious coverage; building coverage; accessory structure setback from principal building.

 

Mr. Mac Ewen said that is the distance from the deck to the proposed garage. 

 

Ms. Dargel stated a variance is also required for front yard setback.

 

Mr. MacEwen said the left side setback will stay the same as it is as we are restricted by the location of the existing home.  For impervious coverage, that is higher because the garage will be in the back of the yard, adding to the length of the driveway.  For building coverage, it is basically for the same reason- the addition of the garage.  As to the additional accessory buildings, we would be glad to remove the shed in the back.  If we remove the shed we would reduce the coverage to 21.3% and impervious would be 31%.  Regarding the fact the garage is larger than 50% of the principal building, we would need more room for lawn furniture, snow blower, bicycles, etc., since we are removing a shed.  A lot of our neighbors have garages that are about 20 x 22 feet and they have trouble parking both cars in the garage without difficulty. 

 

Mr. Crowley asked the width of the porch.

 

Mr. MacEwen said it will be 7 feet wide. 

 

Mr. Stern said the 22.5 foot dimension is from the right-of-way to the front covered porch.  There is a 2 foot overhang on the second floor.  It would be 27.31 feet to the actual home.

 

Mr. Crowley said if the garage was moved up and attached to the house, would that remove some of the variances?

 

Mr. Stern stated the deck is considered a part of the home and requires a 10 foot setback.  You would eliminate one variance and add another variance.

 

Mr. Meyer asked the distance of the new pavement.

 

Mr. MacEwen said about 15 feet.

 

Ms. Dargel said the application says front porches are common in the neighborhood.  Please go into that further.  I didn’t see any front porches on Morgan Drive.

 

Mr. MacEwen said we have some pictures of houses in the neighborhood that have front porches. 

 

The applicant submitted 7 pages of photos which were taken in December (marked A-1).  He said there is one with a front porch, and there are many with various types of additions in front of the houses.

 

Ms. Dargel asked which would be most similar to the one proposed

 

Mr. MacEwen said it would be 21 Ann Street. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said none of these depict a covered front porch similar to the one proposed on Morgan Drive. 

 

Ms. Dargel said, regarding Ann Street, what type of houses are on that street?

 

Mr. MacEwen said they vary between houses similar to ours to split-levels and bi-levels. 

 

Mr. Kurtz said the garage is quite large for this property.  What is the size of the door openings?

 

Mr. MacEwen said these are concept plans – we will be hiring an architect.

 

Mr. Kurtz said if you move the garage to attach it to the house, you can get 10 feet to the side yard.  You may have to make the garage a little bit smaller.  That would eliminate a variance.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there are any other houses on the street that are cantilevered forward.  I didn’t see any that go into the setback.

 

Mr. MacEwen said there are four houses on the street that have less than 35 foot setbacks.  One is at 24’ and the rest are at 25’.

 

Mr. Stern said that measurement would be taken from the right-of-way.  How would you know you were at the right-of-way?

 

Mr. MacEwen said he took the assumption that all right-of-ways would be 10 feet from the curb.  These are all on Morgan Drive.

 

Ms. DeFillippo said she has a problem with the size of the garage.  The garage is about 24’ x 26’.   It will be in the middle of the yard and is very large. It would be in the back yard.

 

Mr. Roome asked what the size is of the proposed garage.  

 

Mr. MacEwen said at the time we submitted the zoning permit, we were going with 24’ x 26’.  We then submitted another proposal which would take away 3 of the variances by removing the garage altogether.

 

Ms. DeMasi said it wasn’t an application.  It was another scenario.

 

Mr. MacEwen  said we would be willing to omit the garage or make it smaller.

 

Mr. Kurtz suggested maybe having a smaller garage, or a one-car garage.

 

Ms. Dargel said the house is overwhelming to the lot, and I am not in favor of increasing the impervious coverage by this much, and would suggest perhaps eliminating the cantilever.  Most of the houses on Morgan Drive have not been changed.  This is a very ambitious project for the lot.  

 

Mr. Roome said if you can change it to a one-car garage, you could eliminate the variance for the garage.  By eliminating the one shed, that would eliminate a variance.  Also, you would lower the building and impervious coverage.  My personal opinion is that a porch does add character.  By reworking the application, you can come close on a lot of the variances.

 

Mr. Crowley said a one car garage closer to the street can cut down on the amount of driveway. 

 

Mr. Meyer agreed and suggested  this be carried to have the architect rework this.

 

Mr. Kurtz said the porch would add character.  He also suggested reducing the size of the garage.

 

Ms. DeFillippo agreed about decreasing the size of the garage and moving it closer to the street.  I do like the idea of a front porch.  That whole development is going through a lot of changes.   There are three in a row currently under construction that I saw.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the applicant would like to carry the application to return with a revised drawing.

 

Mr. MacEwen said he would. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

The application was carried to 2/1/05.

 

BA-2-05 – HILDI & JOHN LIBBY – VARIANCE FOR  REAR YARD SETBACK FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON KELLY DR. BLOCK 4603, LOT 7 IN R-2 ZONE

 

John Libby was sworn in.

 

Hildi Libby was sworn in.

 

Ms. Libby said we would like to add a 20 x 20 foot addition to extend our family room to where our deck ends.

 

Mr. Libby said it would give us additional living space.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said a rear yard setback variance is required.

 

Ms. Dargel asked why they have to go into the rear yard setback.

 

Ms. Libby distributed photos she had taken on December 5th (marked A-1).

 

Ms. Libby also distributed a copy of an aerial photo she got off the internet.

 

Ms. Libby said the lot is on the corner.  The house is set back on the lot and is diagonal.  For our family room, if we were to do anything, we would need a variance.  The distance between our house and the neighbor’s house would remain at 100 feet.  We have done a lot of landscaping, and we feel the landscaping totally encloses our property.  The neighbors cannot see our deck.  We wouldn’t be impinging on our neighbor’s aesthetics. 

 

Mr. Roome asked what the 35 foot dimension is.

 

Mr. Libby said it is from the back right corner.  From the left corner it is approximately 40.8 feet.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the addition is one story.

 

Mr. Libby said yes.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked what the size is of the deck.

 

Ms. Libby said it goes back 20 feet.  The addition will be about 20 feet, and an additional 5 feet for a window seat.  There will be Bilco doors down to the basement.

 

Mr. Stern asked how deep the family room will be.

 

Ms. Libby said about 40 feet.  The extra space would be for additional living space.  My younger child is in Tiger Cubs and we host bible study on Tuesday nights.  The extra space would be nice so that we could have company and the children can play.  We would also like to have a gas fireplace. 

 

Mr. Stern asked if there are plans for a daycare?

 

Ms. Libby said no.

 

Mr. Stern said a 40-foot deep family room is atypical.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the application.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

 

Discussion.

 

Roll call:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Roome, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Dargel, no.

 

Ms. Dargel said it is longer than it needs to be, and she doesn’t understand why a residence needs such a large family room.

 

Ms. Robortaccio, yes, because of the way the house is situated on the lot.

 

BA-3-05 – ROBERT  & DANA TAGGART – VARIANCE FOR 5’ FENCE LOCATED ON HENRY ST. BLOCK 2907, LOT 8 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Mr. Roome said he knows Ms. Taggart and she is his son’s teacher.  He didn’t feel it would bias his opinion.

 

The applicant and the public had no objection to Mr. Roome voting on the application.

 

Dana Taggart was sworn in.

 

Robert Taggart was sworn in.

 

Mr. Taggart said they want to replace an existing 5 foot fence.  Our house faces Henry Street and there is a small right-of-access dead end road next to our house which changed what we consider our back yard to a front yard.  There is an existing above ground pool which we would like to secure, and we want to keep the privacy of the back yard.

 

Mr. Stern said the existing fence is within the right-of-way.

 

Mr. Taggart said we purchased the house in April, and that condition existed.  We will take down the existing fence, and the new fence will be within the property line.  The backyard will be fully enclosed.  We will be tying it into the neighbor’s fence.

 

Ms. Dargel said what triggers this variance is because the property is a corner lot, which creates a de facto front yard.

 

Mr. Stern asked if the applicant believes that street will ever be cut through.

 

Mr. Taggart said there is a large home behind us so it is unlikely.

 

Mr. Meyer asked if the applicant could approach the Council about acquiring the property.

 

Mr. Stern said they could do that.

 

Mr. Taggart said it was offered at one time, and our neighbor chose not to do that.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application because of unique circumstances: de facto front yard located on side of the house; they are moving the fence off of right-of-way; there is a pool which requires a fence; the current fence is an eyesore which will be fixed.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Roome, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-5-05 – WEST CHESTER MACHINERY – SOIL RELOCATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON OLD LEDGEWOOD RD. BLOCK 9393, LOT 6 & 7 IN B1A ZONE

 

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.  He stated there was a variance and site plan approved for this property in 2003 to move the residential use and to expand the commercial use.  We are here for a major soil movement application.

 

George Gloede, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He addressed the report from Pequest Engineering dated 1/3/05:

 

Item 1 - Calculations submitted to Mr. Bodolsky for his review.  There will be probably 100 to 120 truckloads of soil leaving the site.  1,831 cy of soil will be moved out of the municipality.  The total quantity of cut is about 2,200 cy.  Some of that material will be used for berms on site.  Based on the size of the berms, we will have some excess. 

 

Item 2 – Applicant acknowledged there will be a performance bond for $2,000, or .35 x total earthwork quantity, whichever is agreed upon.

 

Item 3 – Applicant agreed to payment of soil movement fee.

 

Item 4 - Receiving site will be in Mt. Olive.  Route of travel will be Route 206 to Route 80.  Another alternative would be Route 206, through ITC onto Route 46.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the Board should consider that further.  The Board should consider the fact that if the trucks go to Route 80, the trucks have to come out Mountain Road to Route 206 and to make that turn.  Perhaps the hours of operation should also be discussed.

 

Mr. Gloede said we are in agreement with the standard hours of operation.

 

Ms. Dargel asked how many truckloads a day are anticipated.

 

Jim Gordon of Westchester Machinery was sworn in.  He stated the work will take about 4 days.  There will be about 25 truckloads a day.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said another consideration is the proximity of the neighboring house.

 

Mr. Gordon said that house is owned by the contractor who is doing the job, and has an excavating company on his property.  I am the second-to-last lot in Roxbury.  The contractor is the last house.  The trucks will be going through very little roads in Roxbury.  

 

Mr. Meyer asked if there is concern about fully loaded trucks coming out and crossing Route 206 for a left turn. 

 

Mr. Gordon said there are already trucks that are loaded coming out at that light from the transfer station.

 

Mr. Meyer said there may be a concern at 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

 

After discussion on the route of travel, it was determined the route of travel will be a right turn onto Old Ledgewood Road, to Route 46 West.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application with the hours of travel as stipulated in the ordinance; route of travel will be a right onto Old Ledgewood Rd. to Route 46 West.  Mr. Meyer seconded.

 

Discussion.

 

The applicant agreed to the last four items in Mr. Bodolsky’s report.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Roome, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-60--05 – Kimber Petroleum will not be heard and is carried to 2/14/05.

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 9:00 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-21-04 – KENBAR INVESTMENTS – USE/SITE/SUBDIVISION FOR FLEXIBLE WAREHOUSE LOCATED ON ORBEN DR. BLOCK 8602, LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 & 15 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.

 

He said Mr. Gloede had submitted a revised plan and will testify as to the changes that have been made as a result of the prior hearing.

 

Mr. Gloede described the changes which include the reduction of the size of the building by 13 feet.  We continue to have 13 units.  By doing that, it brought the drive away from a disturbed area, the driveway is further in, the distance from the corner of the building is decreased.  There were minor changes to the detention basin – we made it deeper.  We removed the future parking area.  We removed the parking space from one area and the distance is now conforming.  Since this plan was submitted, we will start the 6 foot sidewalk at the face of the building and it will be clear for many of the columns.

 

Mr. Gloede said there had been discussion on creating two retaining walls.  By putting in the one retaining wall, we would eliminate grading and have less disturbance and would retain more of the trees.  At the other location, we will put additional spruce trees for additional screening.  There were also other items related to drainage which will be worked out with Mr. Bodolsky, such as the gravel along the edge of the pavement.  That will require a design waiver.   

 

Mr. Meyer asked about the number of parking spaces.

 

Mr. Stern said 63 are required, and 67 will be constructed, with 20 banked. 

 

Mr. Nusbaum said architectural plans have been drawn.

 

Mr. Gloede referred to the revised architectural plan (marked A-4) and described the changes which have been made.  He said the plan shows the westerly side of the building treatment, which was of concern.   We will bring the split faced block higher, and continue the metal wall panels above that.  The left side elevation will have a straight horizontal line. 

 

Mr. Gloede said the 11/25/05 plan depicts the freestanding sign.  It is a split faced concrete block sign, 9’ high x 8’8” width across the top.  It will be landscaped on the bottom and the sign area will be 30 square feet.  It is intended as a conforming sign.  That eliminates the prior variance request.  The sign detail will be on the revised plans.

 

Mr. Nusbaum stated there has been a problem with respect to a considered sidewalk on Route 46 because it seems like a bad place for it. 

 

Mr. Gloede submitted photos taken by Mr. Hyman [marked A-5 (a, b) and A-6 (c,d)].

 

Mr. Gloede said the pictures show the sidewalk area as it exists.  There isn’t a lot of room to put the sidewalk there.  You would need a break in the guardrail at the culvert, and it would be a sidewalk to nowhere.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said at the last meeting the Board said they wanted the sidewalk subject to DOT.  The Board might want to reconsider because of the high level of impracticality associated with it and the low level of benefit.

 

Mr. Meyer said there will be 13 units in this building, and there may be employees who might want to walk along there.  If you were to put the sidewalk and had the break at the culvert, where would they walk?

 

Mr. Nusbaum said they would walk along the shoulder.

 

Mr. Meyer asked if the sidewalk could bridge the culvert. 

 

Mr. Gloede said it would be major construction.  We would have to deal with the DEP, the DOT, and we would have to remove guardrail at the end near BMW.

 

Ms. DeFillippo said she frequently sees people walking along that section of Route 46.  This is an opportunity to address getting sidewalks there.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said the applicant will agree to put the sidewalks in subject to DOT approval.  We would not agree to put in something to bridge the stream. 

 

Mr. Crowley said he would prefer to see a safe sidewalk that would bridge the stream. 

 

Mr. Wiener suggested a bona fide good faith effort be made to obtain a reasonable approval from DOT.  If approval cannot be gotten, the applicant would have to come back to the Board.

 

The Board agreed sidewalk will be required, subject to DOT approval.

 

Eric Snyder, planner for the applicant, stepped forward.  He addressed Mr. Stern’s report dated 4/8/04:

 

Mr. Snyder said in his report dated March 6, 2004, he addressed the variances.  Since then, the variance regarding steep slopes has been significantly reduced.  The effect of disturbance of steep slopes are well know.  Those effects have been properly addressed in the site plan application. The Soil Conservation District also has rules and regulations.   Those rules and regulations, along with the extensive landscaping proposed, are more than sufficient to offset any negative impact caused by a temporary encroachment into those steep slopes.  The building has been reduced in size in response to concerns raised by Mr. Stern.    There will be a dedication of a conservation easement for the remainder of the steep slope areas. 

 

Mr. Snyder addressed the variances, stating Lot 15 is currently a nonconforming lot.  The proposal is to remove the panhandle.  Mr. Stern agrees that, this being a substandard lot, and the panhandle having no effect, it is a variance that can be easily granted, as there is no effect on the property, zone plan, etc.  All of these variances are a combination of hardship variances.  They are a function of the odd shape of the property, the fact it has three road frontages, and is topographically difficult.  The building is being constructed in the area with the least impact to natural resources.  The minimum lot size is 5 acres, and this lot doesn’t come close, however, it is being reduced to a very minor extent.  Regarding the setback variances, as a function of the topographic characteristics, the relatively level area where the building will be sited, the building will be located irregularly on an irregular property.  This design is an approach to minimize the impact of the approved use on the property.  Also, the lot is heavily wooded in the rear.  The neighbors are commercial; the view lines are highly obscured.  Having removed a significant portion of the overflow parking and banking parking, the only residential neighborhood that could have been affected is no longer affected.   There are photos in my report to show that.  The only other variances raised in Mr. Stern’s report are parking setbacks and access isles.  Mr. Gloede testified that one of the variances has been eliminated.  The second is a function of the odd shape of the site and is highly screened from view.  It will have no effect on the neighborhood, neighbors, or zone plan.

 

Mr. Snyder addressed the design waivers:

 

2.22 – addressed – Board agreed to waiving curbing on north side of Hillcrest only

2.23 – addressed

 

Mr. Stern said since curbs will not be provided along the northerly parking bay, what will you use to keep the vehicles within the curbed area?

 

After discussion, it was determined there will be landscaping and a wood guide rail.

 

Item 2.24 – design waiver eliminated

Item 2.25 – design waiver eliminated

 

Mr. Stern said there is an issue as to what connects the parking areas to the sidewalk for pedestrians.

 

Mr. Gloede said we will provide additional concrete pads to go out to the curb, and they will fall between two parking spaces.  There will be landscaping between the sidewalk and the curbing.

 

2.28 – will comply

2.29 – design waiver requested

2.33 – Mr. Gloede stated they are not parking spaces for trucks – it is for a truck to pull in and park parallel to the building.

2.36 – will do as recommended

3.8 – complying sign

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked if the retaining walls along the access drive will be shown on the plans.

 

Mr. Gloede said it will be shown on the plans.

 

The applicant addressed other items in Mr. Stern’s report:

 

2.2 – agreed

2.3 – yes

2.4 – yes – Mr. Wiener said he received a letter from Mr. Nusbaum, and the question as to the legal status of the streets has been answered.

2.5 – eliminated

2.13 – agreed

2.14 – agreed – 18.2%

2.15, 2.16 – agreed

2.17 – none – will comply

2.18 – agreed – DEP asked the applicant to delineate on the wetlands map what is considered State Open Waters, and to show the area of wetlands be delineated.  We expect to have a Letter of Interpretation any day now.  We are applying for our lot.  A representative of DEP did note there may be wetlands in that area but they would be considered isolated wetlands and it does not affect our property at all.

2.19 – agreed

2.20    - agreed

2.21    – done

2.26 – will do

2.27, 2.28 – will do

2.30 – will do

2.31 – will do

2.32 – addressed

2.34 – yes

2.35 – will do

2.36 – will do

2.37 – will do

2.38 – will do

2.39 – agreed, subject to discussion with Township Engineer

2.40 – no response from Environmental Commission

2.41 – done

3.1, 3.2 – done – green roof with beige split block.  Metal will be some beige and some green

3.3 – ok

3.4 – no

3.5 – not on the roof – if there will be condensing unites, they will be off to the side and screened.

 

Mr. Hyman said we don’t know what size they will be until we have the tenants.  We want it to look nice. 

 

Mr. Stern said it should be looked at prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant will make the best efforts to locate them.

 

Discussion.

 

The applicant agreed to work it out with Mr. Stern to put them on either end of the building to the extent it can be done.

 

3.6 – ok

3.7 – note has been eliminated

3.9 – done

3.10 – done

3.11 – will do

3.12 – ok

3.13 – ok

 

Regarding Mr. Stern’s report of 1/10/05, Mr. Nusbaum said the applicant received the report today, and we would like to ask for approval subject to satisfactorily addressing the landscape issues and tree removal issues with Mr. Stern.

 

Mr. Stern said the tree removal ordinance encourages retention of existing vegetation, limiting the level of disturbance. The applicant is attempting to do that.  The code says you need a certain number of replacement trees, based on the disturbance.  It may be difficult on this site, if they limit the area of disturbance. For the replacement trees that cannot be accommodated, the applicant can provide a contribution to the tree fund.  That fund goes toward tree planting for the community and other activities to beautify the community.

 

The Board members agreed.

 

Mr. Stern said there is a design waiver required for not providing street trees along Orben Drive and Route 46.  I have no objection.  A design waiver is also required for street trees required within the right-of-way.  I recommend they be put in the right-of-way along their portion of Hillcrest Avenue.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said there are about 5 items in his report which were to be revisited.  Item 12 requested a complete survey of the Hillcrest right-of-way, which the applicant agreed to do.  Item 14 was addressed.  Item 24 deals with the traffic study.  I don’t believe it has been submitted. One issue was the right turn out of Orben Drive.  I think it is appropriate for the Board to see what will be in the report.  I would like the Board to refrain from accepting one-sheet submissions when we need a full set of drawings.  If we had a full submission I would have rendered a full review.  I feel it is appropriate for us to see everything that has been discussed before the Board approves an application. 

 

Mr. Nusbaum said the applicant would agree to submit the ITE information to Mr. Bodolsky, and would like to have our approval contingent on it.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said Item 27 was resolved.  Item 28 deals with lighting. 

 

After discussion, the applicant agreed to discuss the lighting on the public street with the Township Engineer, and leave it to his discretion.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said regarding the traffic, we don’t have any testimony on how much traffic will be generated, and if it is a concern of the Board about the Orben Drive/Route 46 intersection, they should get the testimony.  Or, it would assist the Township Engineer on the off-tract contribution determination that he will be making.  We should get the traffic study anyway. 

 

Mr. Meyer asked if there is a possibility that this property could be leased by an intensive use, such as manufacturing, etc.

 

Mr. Stern said there is that potential, but when you look at certain traffic generators, warehousing has typically lower traffic generators.  This application, with more than 49% warehousing proposed at this time, would actually lessen traffic demand.

 

Mr. Snyder said that is correct.  Zoning pre-supposes a certain level of traffic, and we are providing a lesser level.  In theory, the amount of traffic is understood to be acceptable.

 

Mr. Snyder said the number of parking spaces is generated by the equation in the ordinance.  That did not change.  If we were to build the number of spaces we anticipate, we would need far fewer than the 67 spaces to be built. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there will be tractor trailers.

 

Mr. Gloede said there will be an occasional tractor trailer that will come in short term.  There won’t be any long term parking on site.  We did a calculation based on total daily trips.  Based on the current configuration of 24,128 sq. ft. of warehousing, that ends up being 121 trips per day.  The office portion is 6,032 square ft. The trip generation manual considers that for general office.  This is warehouse office space.  The number tends to be on the higher side.  That number is 75 total trips in and out every day for a total of 196 in and out in a 24 hour period.  That doesn’t really reflect the use by this property because of the type of use.  I did not do the peak hour numbers.  I just did the total daily trips.   Even for peak hour trips, because of the type of businesses, everyone won’t be going in or leaving at the same time.  ITE doesn’t really reflect this type of units.  The numbers are based on warehousing and general office.

 

 

 

 

                                                           

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated due to the hour, we will not be able to hear the Merry Heart application.

 

The Merry Heart application was carried to 2/14/05 to schedule special meeting date – possibly 2/28/05.

 

                                                           

 

Mr. Bodolsky said if the Board is satisfied with the scope of the testimony tonight, they also need a comparison of what this will generates vs. what is on Orben Drive now. That would get the Township Engineer a percentage that he could use, if necessary for off-tract contributions.

 

Mr. Meyer said he would prefer to leave it up to the Township Engineer.

 

Mr. Roome left at 10:30 p.m.

 

Ms. Kinback left at 10:40 p.m.

 

The Board felt further traffic testimony won’t be required.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Stern said there was a 3/11/04 memo from the Tax Assessor requiring Smith Avenue to be vacated and that Lots 2 through 5 be merged into Lot 14 by recorded deed before final Planning Board approval is granted and before C.O. is issued for the warehouse use.  Lot 15 may remain separate.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said the applicant will comply.

 

Mr. Stern said there was a memo from the Fire Official requesting “no parking/fire zone”  striping in 3 locations, and title 39 for “no parking/fire zones”. 

 

The applicant agreed.

 

Mr. Stern said there was a memo dated 3/31/04 from the Police Department requesting two stop signs.

 

The applicant agreed.

 

 

Mr. Stern said there was a 4/8/04 memo from the Township Engineer which had the following comments:

 

  1. Orben Drive requires pavement section repairs and crack sealing treatment in a few areas between Route 46 and Hillcrest Avenue.  There also appears to be some areas in need of curb repair and minor storm sewer inlet repair in this portion of Orben Drive.
  2. The broken section of Orben Drive reveals approximately a total of 4” of bituminous asphalt section.  This is considered substandard according to current requirements.  In addition, more frequent tractor trailer traffic will shorten the accessible service life of the pavement.  This office believes that 2” bituminous surface course constructed over the repaired Orben Drive between Route 46and just beyond the Hillcrest Avenue intersection will lengthen the pavement service lift.
  3. The small existing portion of Hillcrest Avenue should also receive a 2” overlay of bituminous surface course.
  4. The proposed Hillcrest Avenue should be curbed in its entirety.
  5. This office has no objection to the portion of Smith Avenue proposed to be vacated.
  6. This project proposed sanitary sewer connection to the Township’s existing system within Route 46.  Estimated use is approximately 3,100 gallons per day.
  7. The Township is still under a moratorium for new water connections.
  8. Improvements proposed in items 1 through 3 would satisfy the applicant’s pro rata share contribution for off-tract improvements.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said the approval would be subject to resolving the appropriate pro rata share contribution with the Township Engineer, and we would take the issue up with him immediately upon approval.

 

Mr. Stern said the curbing on Hillcrest Avenue will be on one side.

 

Ms. Dargel asked, regarding Mr. Bodolsky’s report, is the 300 foot buffer required?

 

Mr. Bodolsky said they do not have to comply with the regulations.  This property is not in the Highlands Preservation area.

 

Ms. Dargel said we have received a report from the Morris County Planning Board, and they had no recommendations.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the application pending the recommendations of the Township Engineer, subject to all items recommended by the Planner and Engineer that have been agreed to; applicant must apply to DOT for sidewalk and comply with all outside regulations.  Mr. Meyer seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:40 p.m.

 

                                                Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

lm/