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

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairperson Gail Robortaccio presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, Ms. Robortaccio read the “Open Public Meeting Act”.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Gail Robortaccio, Kathy DeFillippo, Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Scott Meyer, Barbara Kinback.

 

ABSENT:  Robert Kurtz, Mike Roome, Robert Church.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.

 

Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary

 

Minutes of 11/8/04

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Discussion.  Corrections noted and made.

 

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

 

Minutes of 12/13/04

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

 

Discussion.  Corrections noted and made.

 

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

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

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

 

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

January 10, 2005

Memorialized: February 14, 2005

 

 

 

WHEREAS, Hildi & John Libby have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a 20’ x 20’ rear addition requiring a dimensional variance for premises located at 2 Kelly Drive and known as Block 4603, Lot 7 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1101D5a 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 applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicants were proposing to construct a 20’ x 20’ addition onto the rear of the house.
  3. The applicant’s proposal was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 10/26/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The applicant submitted a 10-photo spread of their home (A-1) and a satellite aerial photo (A-2).
  6. The proposed one story addition would result in a 35’ rear yard setback (50’ required vs. 52’ existing).

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 Board finds the peculiar shape of the applicant’s property together with the way the existing house is located on that property constitute hardships peculiar to the subject premises.  The applicant’s addition is truly not out of character with the existing setback pattern and will have no adverse impact on the Zone Plan and Zone Scheme.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 10th day of January, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Addition to be constructed, sized, and located as depicted on the plot plan and elevation plan submitted with the application.  Rear yard setback to be no less than 35 feet as requested.
  2. There shall be no commercial use of the applicant’s premises (noting the Board was concerned about the somewhat larger family room evolving into a non-residential use).

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

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

 

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

 

In the matter of Dana & Robert Taggart

Case No. BA-3-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: January 10, 2005

Memorialized: February 14, 2005

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Dana & Robert Taggart have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a fence in violation of the Zoning Ordinance for premises located at 38 Henry Street and known as Block 2907, Lot 8 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.809B 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 applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicant’s premises are nominally a corner lot.  The house is orientated towards Henry Street and on the northern side yard fronts on an “unnamed street”.
  3. There is presently a dilapidated fence along the unnamed street.  That fence is actually located within the right-of-way of the unnamed street.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 8/17/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The Ordinance limits fence height in the front yard to a maximum of four feet.  A variance is needed even though the front yard is an unnamed street.
  6. The applicant presented a plot plan showing the location of the proposed fence noting that same would be within their property line as depicted on the plot plan.  The fence along the unnamed road would be a cedar type fence.  The applicant stated the need for the fence was to create privacy for the backyard.  Same could not be accomplished by a four-foot conforming fence.  

                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. Although the Zoning Ordinance creates two front yards, in reality the subject premises have only one true front yard.  That front yard is Henry Street.  The second front yard is caused by the location of the unnamed right-of-way as depicted on the survey.  This is truly a de facto side or rear yard.
  2. The grant of this variance will have absolutely no impact on anyone and will merely give the applicant’s property the same right to maintain a fence as other similarly situated properties in Roxbury.

                        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14th day of February, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Fence is to be constructed and located as depicted on the plot plan.  Same to be no higher than five feet and located entirely within the applicant’s property.  The only relief granted is for the five-foot height along the side of the premises fronting on the unnamed right-of-way.  Fence shall, in all other respects, conform to the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. DeFillippo made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-5-05 – WEST CHESTER MACHINERY – SOIL RELOCATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON OLD LEDGEWOOD RD. BLOCK 9303, LOTS 6 & 7 IN B1A ZONE

 

ROXBURY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

 

MAJOR SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT

 

 

                Pursuant to Chapter XVII of the General Ordinances of the Township of Roxbury, Article 17-1 et.seq. (the “Ordinance”), the Roxbury Township Zoning Board of Adjustmen5t (the “Board”), having conducted a public hearing with public notice pursuant to the Ordinance, does hereby grant to the Applicant identified herein a Major Soil Permit, subject to the terms and conditions enumerated herein below.

 

1.        Applicant/Permittee:  West Chester Machinery

 

2.        Application Number:  BA-05-05

 

3.        Property Identification:  Block 9303, Lots 6 & 7

 

4.        Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s):  3/24/03

 

5.        Major Soil Permit Approval Date:  3/7/02

 

6.        Effective Date:

 

7.        Findings of Fact:

 

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

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

c.        A public hearing was conducted in accordance with the Ordinance and with opportunity for comment by interested members of the public on the following dates:  1/10/05.

d.       In granting this Permit, the Board has considered the factors enumerated in Section 17-6.6 of the Ordinance.  The Board has received and considered the following documents in connection with this Application:  (1) soil moving application dated 3/7/02; (2) earthwork calculations by George Gloede, P.E., dated 1/4/05; and (3) reports of the Zoning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 1/3/05.

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

                                                               i.      The Applicant intends to export 1,770 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil.

                                                              ii.      The Applicant proposes to relocate within the site 267 c.y. of soil.

                                                            iii.      The Applicant intends to obtain export fill to a location outside the Township.                 

                                                            iv.      The route of truck travel to Applicant’s site to the disposal site will be: Mountain Avenue to Route 206 South to International Drive West (and reversed).

                                                             v.      The Applicant has agreed to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s Engineer dated 1/3/05.                           .

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

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

 

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

 

a.        Applicant shall post a performance guarantee, consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-8, in an amount indicated in Subparagraph H.5 below, as determined by the Board Engineer based on quantity of soil moved at the rate of ($0.35) per cubic yard of material moved.

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

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

d.       This approval shall not become effective until: (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes and assessment due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all conditions of the 3/7/02 approval fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer.

e.        Applicant shall comply with (i) “Hours of Operation” established pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-9d; (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:

                                                               i.      All fill will be exported from Applicants site from/to a site outside the Township to Mt. Olive Township.

                                                              ii.      The route of truck travel from Applicant’s site from the borrow site to the disposal site shall be Mountain Avenue to Route 206 South to International Drive West (and reversed).

                                                            iii.      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”.

                                                            iv.      Applicant shall post fees as follows: $265.50 (1,770 c.y x $0.15)

                                                             v.      Per Section 17-8 of the Ordinance, Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.00 (Ordinance Minimum)

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

                                                          vii.      In accordance with Ordinance Section 17-6.1(t), the Applicant shall stake out interior improvements with appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer.



 

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

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

 

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

 

BA-21-04 – KENBAR INVESTMENTS – USE/SITE/SUBDIVISION FOR FLEXIBLE WARE HOUSE LCOATED ON ORBEN DR. BLOCK 8602, LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 & 15

 

Resolution not available.  Carried to 3/14/05.

 

AGENDA

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-39-04 – Viacom will not be heard and is carried to 3/14/05.  Application BA-25-05 – Merry Heart Nursing Home will not be heard and is carried to a special meeting on 2/28/05BA-25-04 – Kingtown Diesel will not be heard and is carried to a special meeting of 3/14/05Application BA-66-04 - John Selby will not be heard and is carried to 3/14/05BA-75-04 – Dakor/Roxbury Motel will not be heard and is carried to 3/14/05.

 

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 present.   He stated he has submitted new plans to address the suggestions given by the Board at the last hearing.  He said he made the garage smaller and attached it to the house.

 

Ms. Dargel said this has made the impervious coverage and building coverage come down closer to what the ordinance allows.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

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

 

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

 

BA-8-05 – MICHAEL SPITZER – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO  HOME AND GARAGE LOCATED ON CAROL DR. BLOCK 1609, LOT 17 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Michael Spitzer, 46 Carol Drive, was sworn in.

 

Meredith Spitzer, 46 Carol Drive, was sworn in.

 

Mr. Spitzer said they would like to build a dining room addition and expand the current detached garage.  The layout of the property makes it difficult to build towards the side, so they want to build the dining room out the back.  They would also like to expand the garage towards the right side property line.  Mr. Spitzer said he wants to expand the garage so that they can build a loft above it for his equipment and to make the garage wider for another vehicle.  The height of the addition to the detached garage would be within the 15 foot requirement from the eave to the midpoint.

 

Ms. Dargel said there is a shed on the property which is not shown on the plans.

 

Mr. Spitzer said the shed is 8’ x  8’ and he is not sure whether it was included in the figures for impervious and building coverage.   He said he would also like to mention that the survey he submitted did not include his current driveway.  It is wider than the one shown on the survey.  That would also increase the impervious coverage by 275 square feet, for a total increase of  339 square feet.

 

Ms. Dargel said it also looks like there will be a 4’ x  4’ landing on the ground level between the dining room and garage.

 

Mr. Spitzer said it will be a raised wood deck.

 

Mr. Meyer said there is also a deck marked 4’ x 18’.

 

Mr. Spitzer said that is a wrap-around deck around the back portion of the house.

 

Ms. Dargel said that is not shown on the schematic of the inside of the house which was submitted.

 

Ms. DeFillippo said it looks like the lower deck is existing and the applicant plans on extending it out past the proposed dining room addition.  Is that off the ground?

 

Mr. Spitzer said it is three steps up, about 24 to 30 inches.  At the end will be steps going down to the garage, and steps from the new addition down to the garage.  At the bottom of the two staircases will be a wooden deck at the lower level, one step up from the driveway.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what the impervious coverage will be.

 

Mr. Wiener said if the dimensions are as stated, it would add 3.6%, making the impervious coverage 32.64%.  Building coverage would increase slightly.  Currently it is 18.6%. 

 

Mr. Stern said this will require a revised submission by the applicant.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if a variance would be required for more than two accessory structures.

 

Mr. Stern asked if the deck will be attached to the garage.

 

Mr. Spitzer said the platform will be attached to the house and to the garage.

 

Mr. Stern said we would need to see this shown on the plans.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if there will be any electricity or water in the garage.

 

Mr. Spitzer said no.

 

Mr. Stern asked what will occur on the second floor of the garage.

 

Mr. Spitzer said he has shop equipment and woodworking tools.  There would be electricity on that level.  This is not related to a carpentry business.  With the addition, it would be a 2-car garage. 

 

Mr. Stern said it appears from the plans that some of the deck encroaches on the front of the existing garage by about 4 feet. 

 

Mr. Spitzer said it would be tight, but it could still fit a 16 foot door.   A lot of the errors on the plans goes back to previous submissions.  The earliest submission was in July of 2001.  I had submitted a plan for a similar dining room and that Zoning Permit was approved by the former Zoning Officer.  I went back a few years later to follow through with the building, and I couldn’t go forward because I didn’t have a sealed copy of the original permit.  I do have a copy of the Zoning Officer’s signature at that time, with all the items I was asking for at that time. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said that zoning permit has expired.  There have been changes in the requirements, notably for impervious coverage.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the exact size of the proposed garage is not shown.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if a patio is proposed for around the pool.

 

Ms. Spitzer said no.

 

Mr. Meyer asked what the height of the house is, and the height of the peak of the new garage.

 

Mr. Spitzer said the proposed garage peak is about 18 ½ feet, and he believes the house is about 16 feet high.

 

Ms. Dargel said we should have the exact dimension.

 

Mr. Stern said he recommends they re-submit with all the correct information, correct dimensions, and location of driveway.  Mr. Potere will then do a full review of the application.

 

Mr. Meyer suggested the applicant discuss the plans with Mr. Potere regarding the variance situation with the garage attached, or with the garage not attached.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED 

 

The application was carried to 3/14/05 at 7:00 p.m.

 

BA-7-05 – RTM HOLDING – USE VARIANCE FOR TWO USES IN BUILDING LOCATED ON WEST DEWEY AVE. BLOCK  12702, LOT 2 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

Attorney Bernd Hefele represented the applicant. 

 

Mr. Wiener said this application is for a ‘d’ variance, and there are only 6 Board members present to hear this application.

 

Mr. Hefele said they will proceed.  He said this application requires a use variance for a property located on West Dewey Avenue.

 

Gary Behrens, owner of the property, was sworn in.

 

Richard Marthens, of RTM Holdings, was sworn in.

 

Mr. Hefele stated this is a 60,000 square foot building which currently has one use, and we propose a second use in the building.

 

Mr. Behrens stated the building is used for manufacturing compressed air dryers, which are tanks put together with piping, painted, and shipped out by flatbed or box trailer.  The building has been used for this since 1965.  There are no hazardous materials, and no outdoor storage.  This use will continue in a small way.  The operation will be more assembly.  We are downsizing our operation to about 6,000 square feet.  Currently there are about 52 parking spaces, and we have 6 employees.  The property faces West Dewey Avenue.  Directly across the street is vacant property.  Down Mill Pond Road, there is currently a well being drilled by Morris County.  At the end of that street are several rental properties, which I believe will be vacated by the current residents.  To the west of us in an abandoned rail line.  Across the rail line is a small industrial complex with about 10 tenants.  To the east is Mill Road.  Behind the property to the north is the active N.J. Transit rail.  We do not use the rail line.

 

Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Behrens received a Certificate of Pre-Existing Nonconforming Use from the Township.

 

Mr. Behrens said he received the certification.  Prior to 2001, the property was zoned I-10, Heavy Industrial, and in 2001 it was changed to LI/OR.  We are a pre-existing nonconforming use. 

 

Mr. Hefele asked about the trucks entering and exiting the site.

 

Mr. Behrens said we ship two ways.  If it was a large piece of equipment, a tractor trailer would drive into the building and be loaded.  We also ship by Common Carrier.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if a solid wall will separate the two uses.

 

Mr. Marthens said that is not anticipated.

 

 

 

In answer to questions from Mr. Hefle, Mr. Marthens said he is the contract purchaser, and intends to put in storage and warehousing of office furniture.  We would use about 2/3 of the building.  The office would be in the smaller section of the “L” and there would be warehousing in the larger area, and there will be storage in the mezzanine.   Clients will be coming in from time to time to look at specific items.  It is not a retail use.

 

Mr. Stern asked if customers come in to Mr. Marthen’s operation.

 

Mr. Marthens said sometimes customers come in to inspect items.  We don’t sell out of the building.  Most of the business is national or international. 

 

Mr. Hefele asked Mr. Marthens to explain how his business operates.

 

Mr. Marthens stated we buy out and liquidate large buildings.  We bring the furniture in and store it.  The furniture comes in by truck, sits in the warehouse, and then goes out by truck.  There will be two employees, including Mr. Marthens.  About 1,500 square feet will be used for office space for the business.

 

Mr. Meyer said there is an overabundance of parking spaces.

 

Mr. Stern said if you were a full manufacturing facility and doing assembly, you could have warehousing related to that, because it is a component of warehousing.  What is different here is that the applicant has about a 95% warehousing type operation.  Though this application, the applicant is reducing the nonconforming nature of this as he is eliminating the manufacturing use. 

 

Mr. Hefele said our position is that it does fit in even though it is not specifically enumerated in the ordinance.  We do need the ‘d’ variance.  We feel it fits into the character of the neighborhood and has no negative impacts.  

 

Ms. Dargel said there is a big tank out back.

 

Mr. Behrens said it is an above-ground, double walled, 5,000 gallon oil tank.  It meets all the State criteria.  Number 2 fuel oil is stored there.  There is another tank in the back that is an air receiver, and is filled with compressed air.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes – she stated she believes this is a good use for this area; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-9-05 – AMERADA HESS – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR SERVICE STATION AND FOODMART LOCATED ONR T. 10 BLOCK 5003, LOT 1 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Donna Jennings represented the applicant.  She this application is for final site plan approval for the Hess Station.  She said they received the reports from the consultants.  We would like to address the items in the reports that we need to have discussion on.  All other items are agreed to.

 

Andy Lautenbacher was sworn in.

 

Tom Pugsley of Bohler Engineering was sworn in.

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report dated 2/11/05:

 

Item 2 – Mr. Lautenbacher stated when we ordered the store, we instructed the manufacturer to finish it completely all the way around and they put the checkerboard pattern all around.

 

In answer to questions from Ms. Jennings, Mr. Lautenbacher said when we presented the original architectural drawing it was for a standard Hess store where the rear of the store is not visible from the street.  Here, all four sides are exposed to the street.  We think this is an enhancement and would like to leave it as constructed.

 

Mr. Stern said he has no objection. 

 

The Board members had no objections.

 

Item 3 – Ms. Jennings said for now, the applicant would like to turn the light off on the interior Hess Express sign, and determine at a later date whether or not we will seek a variance or remove the sign.

 

Discussion.  Ms. Dargel said the township is moving forward with an ordinance to not allow any neon signs.  I would not be in favor of allowing the sign.  Also, there are 3 canopy signs existing, where only 2 canopy signs were permitted.

 

Mr. Stern said that is correct. 

 

Ms. Jennings said if there is a third canopy sign that was not shown on the plans, we will remove it.

 

Mr. Stern said that would be the one closest to the freestanding sign, facing the north side.

 

Mr. Crowley asked why the existing neon sign inside the building can’t be taken down.

 

Ms. Jennings said we have the option to apply for a variance for that sign, and we would like to be given time to think about that.

 

Mr. Lautenbacher said it is anchored to the wall, and is a delicate neon sign.

 

Mr. Stern said this is a fixed sign on a wall that is clearly visible.  This is in violation of the sign standards.

 

Ms. Jennings said we would make a determination within 60 days whether or not we want to apply for the variance.

 

There was a poll of the Board regarding the neon sign:

 

Ms. Dargel – no neon

Mr. Meyer – Signage is very important in Roxbury.  Reducing visual clutter is an important issue.  He is not in favor of leaving the sign up, and does not think it is necessary to have that number of signs.

 

Mr. Lautenbacher said they will remove the sign.

 

Item 6 – Light will be removed

Item 7 – Parking stall stripes will be re-painted white

Item 18 – Mr. Lautenbacher said the irrigation system is in

Item 25 – Mr. Pugsley said the old fixture was removed, and a new fixture installed

 

All other items in the report are agreed to, and will be completed by the end of the week.

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report dated 2/10/05:

 

Ms. Jennings said the applicant agrees to all items.  Regarding Item #9, referring to  verification of a deed of easement for the public sidewalk, the easement was submitted to the Township Engineer, was executed, and was forward to the Township Clerk to put on the Council agenda.

 

Regarding Item #5, Mr. Lautenbacher stated the two concrete approach pads are being replaced right now.  Regarding Item #6, the ice machine is being removed.  Regarding Item #7, the wallpak light will be removed.

 

Mr. Stern said the only safety issues appear to be completion of the access aprons and  installation of the “Do Not Enter” sign. 

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the applicant has suggested these items will be completed very shortly.  Therefore, there will be no need for a bond except for landscaping.

 

Mr. Lautenbacher said to the right of the front doors are windows that come all the way down, and they were not supposed to be.  That has to be corrected.  We would agree to set a deadline for that for installation within 30 days.

 

Ms. Dargel said it is very rough in the rear where the fill caps are for the gas. 

 

Mr. Lautenbacher said that is standard design for gas stations.

 

Mr. Stern asked about the piping mounted on the exterior of the trash enclosure.

 

Mr. Lautenbacher said that will be moved to the interior of the trash enclosure.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the application subject to all items agreed to; front façade will be renovated and completed within 30 days; landscaping to be bonded; items in Mr. Bodolsky’s report from prior resolution.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

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

 

There was a 5 minute recess.

 

 

 

BA-76-04 – A T & T – VARIANCE FOR ANTENNA LOCATED ON LANDING RD. BLOCK 10604, LOT 4 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

Attorney Michael Levine represented the applicant.  He stated we were here in December to collocate additional antennas on the existing monopole.  The lot that is the subject of our application is an 18-acre parcel with contiguous surrounding properties.  Since the last hearing we sent in a revised submission that addresses some of the concerns.  We were asked to show the other existing uses on the property.  Mr. McNear does operate a quarry operation; there is a tree-mulching/wood chipping operation which was brought up by Mr. Stern.  That matter was referred to the Zoning Officer as that was not an approved use.  Subsequently there was an application submitted by the property owner for approval of that operation.  That is separate from this application.  You will see from our plans and testimonies, the most intense aspects of the quarry operation take place on the other properties contiguous to ours, and not on this particular 18-acre parcel.   We do show the southern boundary and the limits of disturbance on the quarrying activity to give the Board a sense as to where that is, relative to the existing tower compound.  We also show where the mulching/chipping piles are.  We will confirm that, given the passive nature of our proposed use and the fact it will be limited to the tower site and compound and that it is an unmanned facility, we don’t feel it would present any sort of conflict in terms of ingress and egress.

 

Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Stern what roll the other activities going on at McNear should play in the decision of this Board on this application.

 

Mr. Stern said the Board needs to determine how much interplay an additional antenna array on an existing pole has with the mulching operation.  The mulching operation is in the process of zoning code enforcement.   They  have submitted an application and we are awaiting additional information on it.

 

Ms. Dargel said the Board needs to know what is actually approved for that site.  The quarry operation is approved, but not the mulching/chipping operation.

 

Mr. Levine said the existing tower is approved.   It is our position the quarry operation has been in existence even before the installation of the cell tower.  I believe the storage of machinery and equipment was also in existence.  The 1991 resolution for the tower was not that specific.  Our position is that we, as a co-locater on the existing approved monopole, shouldn’t have to get zoning approval for our landlord.  We are prepared to offer testimony to the effect that we don’t feel the existing uses of the property are in conflict with what we propose.

 

Mr. Wiener said there is a threshold issue that needs to be addressed by the Board.  It needs to be determined whether the application should be entertained, notwithstanding the fact there is not any real factual dispute there are activities taking place on the site that are not approved and should not be taking place without appropriate approval.

 

Mr. Levine said our position is that it would not be property for the Board to deny or postpone this application pending that. 

 

Mr. Wiener said the Board needs to determine whether or not to go forward.  I don’t think it is the Board’s place as part of this application, should it go forward, to try and figure out what to do about the other use, other than to have the appropriate enforcement action take place.  The Board has to determine if the scope of what you are doing on site rises to a certain level that, given what else is going on there, is something of real concern or not.

 

There was a poll of the Board as to whether or not to proceed.  The poll resulted in a unanimous decision to proceed without delving into the other activities on the site, other than to discuss briefly whether or not the other uses are in conflict with this use.

 

Pete McTygue, engineer for the applicant, was present and stated the plans have been revised since the last hearing.  He said he received CAD files from Dykstra Walker, and we superimposed them onto our files.  We have also reviewed aerial photos of the site and surrounding area.  On Sheet SO-1 we added the wood chipping operation and the storage area, just north of the Lenel Road cul-de-sac.  The quarrying operation takes place mostly on another property way north of our compound.  We show a dashed line up towards 5th Street.  That is the southern limits of the quarry operation.  It starts a little more than 400 feet from our compound.  Our technicians would not traverse that area. 

 

Mr. Levine asked if Mr. McTygue has reviewed Mr. Bodolsky’s updated engineering review. 

 

Mr. McTygue said he has, and based on his review of the aerial photo attached to the report, sheet SO-1 of the plans shows where the storage area is located.   In my opinion, I don’t see anything that is going on at the property that would interfere with our proposal to co-locate antennas on the existing monopole.

 

Mr. Levine asked about the access road.

 

Mr. McTygue stated that is not currently paved or curbed.  It is a dirt gravel road.  It is customary to see an access road to a monopole that is dirt or gravel.  I have only seen two cases where an access road was required to be paved.  There is no indication that the access road has not functioned appropriately for the existing carriers on the monopole.

 

Mr. McTygue addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report:

 

Item 3 – Drawing CO-1, power to the cabinets is coming from an existing transformer southwest of the compound, about 10 feet outside the compound.  There will be no additional overhead lines.  We don’t know how the power gets from Lenel Road to the transformer.

 

Item 4 – The gate off the cul-de-sac is there to keep individuals from driving in and misusing the compound.  That gate is locked.  We would accept a condition of approval to provide Township emergency personnel with a key or combination to the gate, or a breakaway gate. 

 

Item 5 – Applicant will submit an earthwork calculation.  If soil movement application is necessary, applicant will agree to comply.

 

Item 6 – Discussed.  Mr.  Levine stated this would qualify as a minor site plan and would request preliminary and final site plan approval simultaneously.

 

Item 1A – Mr. McTygue said he has never seen anyone pile mulch on the “roadway”.  If they were to, you could easily just drive around it.  You don’t necessarily have to follow the “roadway”.  That information has no bearing on what we are doing at our site.  It is far enough away that even if they were digging holes, it would not affect the foundation.  Our foundation is mostly located underground, and well within the existing compound.

 

Mr. Meyer asked how long the “roadway” is from Lenel Road to the site.

 

Mr. . McTygue said it is about 900 feet.

 

Mr. Meyer said it seems that one more technician a month would not be much of an increase in traffic on that road, and would not justify paving the road.  However, when the mulch/chipper operation comes to the Board, it may be an issue for them.

 

Mr. Bodolsky suggested, in that event, it would be appropriate to grant waivers from the items outlined in his items in 2A.    We have heard testimony on the impact of this operation on the road.  We haven’t had any testimony on how other operations are impacting the road and whether or not it will remain passable. 

 

Ms. Dargel said that can be addressed with the other application.

 

The Board members agreed.

 

Mr. Crowley addressed Mr. Stern’s report updated 2/10/05:

 

Item 3 – Mr. McTygue stated we submitted a structural analysis report with the revised plan.  The revised analysis is different from the original analysis.  Initially we were told to analyze it with the coaxial cables on the outside of the monopole.  We did that, and found the monopole would need to be retrofit in order to do that.  This analysis has them routed inside the monopole.  A retrofit is not required.  There is sufficient space within the monopole to accommodate the coaxial cable.  A monopole with 4 carriers on it are still customarily able to route everyone’s cables inside. 

 

Mr. Levine asked Mr. McTygue to explain how the structural analysis was performed, and discuss what space is existing on the tower and what is reserved.

 

Mr. McTygue stated on Page 3 of the analysis it lists all the existing, reserved, and proposed antennas.  Table 1 lists what A T & T proposes, which is a total of 12 antennas and 12 Nokia tower-mounted amplifiers, and 12 feel lines.  Table 2 lists the existing and reserved antennas – 12 Verizon antennas at 150 feet (currently there are 9); 9 Nextel antennas at 125 feet (currently there are 9); 3 T-Mobile antennas at 115 feet (currently there are 3) and 6 tower-mounted amplifiers.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if there would be any value to Nextel and T-Mobile to go to the 12 antennas that Verizon and A T & T have.

 

Mr. McTygue said we analyze the towers physically, but as far as what needs to be place because of the signals is out of our range.  That is determined by the RF engineers.  It falls under different carriers.  In our analysis, we have assumed Verizon will add the 3.

 

Mr. Wiener said they would have to return to the Board to add antennas, and would have to do their own analysis.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if we know what is actually existing, and also what has been previously approved.

 

 

 

Mr. McTygue said our research shows there was a resolution dated 5/7/91, which was the approval for the build of the monopole itself; there was a resolution dated 4/13/93 for Nextel.  Also, we had submitted copies of building permits for the two carriers, Nextel and Omnipoint.

 

Ms. Dargel said a contention was made that there were illegal antennas on the pole.  What is legal and what is not?  I don’t recall T-Mobile being legal.

 

Mr. Levine said Omnipoint is T-Mobile.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if they all have Zoning Board approval to be on the tower.

 

Mr. Stern said when the applicant submitted for completeness, it came to our attention from the drawings that an additional array was put on the tower, and we would not proceed with the application until we found out the status of the antennas.  Through the research of the applicant and the Building Department, it was determined one of the carriers did not appear before the Board and they had submitted to the Construction Department, and the Construction Department felt it was a minor issue and granted the permits.  That carrier proceeded with those permits and installed the antennas.  It was a legal approval in terms of the Construction Department.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if all the antennas are legal or not.

 

Mr. Stern said they were granted permits by the Construction Department and they proceeded with those permits.

 

Mr. Dargel asked if it is legal.  She was concerned a precedent was set.

 

Mr. Wiener said the legal precedent is that if you go in, follow the rules, make application to the appropriate municipal official, get a permit, construct it and get approvals, you should feel fairly secure that you have done what you are supposed to have done.  Assuming everything happened as it has been said,  I think after all the time that has gone by (since 1998) it would be extremely difficult for the municipality to say they now have to come in for approval.

 

Mr. Meyer said in the structural analysis report, there is a communication from WPW communications that says the tower is overstressed.

 

Mr. McTygue said that report  was for a different tower and should be omitted.

 

The applicant continued to address Mr. Stern’s report:

 

Item 5 – The retrofit was taken out of the plans – It was determined the tower does not have to be painted.

Item 6 – Agreed – note added to drawings

Item 7 - agreed

Item 9 – cables will be inside the monopole

Item 13 – to the extent a waiver is required for the above-ground coaxial cables, applicant requests waiver

Item 16 – agreed

Item 18 – will submit as-built site plan

Item 19 – agreed

Item 20 – agreed

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. McTygue.

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel asked the applicant to address the variances.

 

Anthony J. Scolaro, professional planner, was sworn in.  He described his educational and professional background for the Board and was accepted as an expert in land use planning.

 

Mr. Scolaro stated the site is particularly suited to the application because it is a co-location on an existing monopole.  Because of the topography of the area, the location fulfills the gap in the radio frequency for the carrier.  It is also distantly located from any residences or sensitive uses.  This activity will not create a negative impact in the LI/OR zone.  It does not create any noxious uses.  There is very minimal traffic.  We are seeking a “D-3” variance.  It is a permitted conditional use, which implies it is a suitable and appropriate use as long as it meets conditions.  This application does not meet some of the bulk requirements.  

Regarding the distance to the nearest zone line, the nearest zone is on Lenel Road which is another industrial zone, which is equally or more intensive.  It is not detrimental.   Regarding the distance to the nearest lot line, the requirement is 1 ½ times the height of the tower.  We are only 87 feet from the lot line.  The property in that area is not fenced or partitioned by lot line.  The adjacent property has the same owner and same operation.  The overall tract is made up of multiple lots.  Regarding the height not meeting the maximum 125 foot requirement, we are proposing to co-locate at 140 feet on an existing 150 foot monopole.  It is a pre-existing condition.  This proposal furthers the preferred siting of wireless applications as it is in the LI/OR Zone, and is a co-location on an existing tower. 

 

Mr. Scolaro referred to an exhibit of photos of the existing conditions and proposed conditions from several vantage points in the Township and indicated there will be no significant change in the appearance of the tower.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Stern asked about the increase in size to the equipment pad since the last submission.

 

Mr. McTygue stated initially the plans were done under General Dynamic’s control doing the work for A. T. & T.  Since that time, Bechtel took over the work, and their standards are different. 

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions agreed upon.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

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

 

BA-6-05 – KIMBER PETROLEUM – USE VARIANCE FOR CONVENIENCE STORE LCOATED ON RT. 10, BLOCK 1905, LOT 21 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Thomas J. Hirsch represented the applicant.  He stated there was a use variance and final site plan approved for an existing gas station on this site in 1994.  We are not adding any new structures to the site.  We are proposing to convert an existing bay, bathroom and office space into a convenience store of 414 square feet. 

 

Steven Atkins, Vice President of Engineering with Kenderian Zilinski, was sworn in.  He described his educational and professional background for the Board and was accepted as a professional engineer.

 

Mr. Atkins described the site, stating there is an existing Exxon station located on the eastbound side of Route 10 across from the furniture store.  The Black River is to the east of the property. 

 

Mr. Atkins referred to an exhibit of portions of sheet 1 and sheet 2 of the site plan (A-1).  He said there is an existing 1,750 square foot building with pavement, underground tank, and pump islands.  The upper elevation on the exhibit shows the existing condition, and the lower elevation is the proposed condition.

 

Mr. Hirsh stated the convenience store is a permitted use with the gas station use.  A gas station is permitted to have up to 750 square feet of a convenience store.  This is 414 square feet. 

 

Mr. Atkins said there will be no structural changes other than the interior re-partitioning of the building and minor changes to the façade.

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report dated January 6, 2005:

 

Item 1 – Mr. Hirsh stated currently there are 3 employees, and 4 are proposed.  Hours of operation will be 5 a.m. to 11 p.m., as required with the prior resolution for the site

 

Mr. Atkins said the peak hour parking demand and peak hour traffic, in my opinion they would not occur at the same time.  The facility is very busy early morning.  They have a lot of visitors for gas.  Around 9 a.m. the service portion opens up and at that point there would be more vehicles parked within the site.  The early morning hours would be most likely to be the busiest times for the convenience store, and the parking demand would increase.  There would be a greater demand from 5 – 7 a.m. vs. 8:30 to 9:30 where the service element takes a more significant roll.  We do not have a traffic study to support that, but that information comes from my experience working with numerous gas station locations.  In my opinion the parking is adequate to meet the needs.  My survey results are that under existing conditions, 7 parking spaces are needed.  All service work is scheduled.  Under the proposed conditions, there will be a total of 12 parking spaces provided, and meet the ordinance requirements. 

 

Mr. Atkins said in terms of the type of retail product, it will be pre-packaged items, coffee, etc.  Sandwich sales is not proposed.  There will be no cooking of food.  At some time in the future there may be a hot dog machine.

 

Item 3 – informational

Item 4 – addressed

Item 5 – one vehicle will be removed, and two will remain until they are repaired.  It is not intended to be a storage area.

Item 6 – deliveries will be by panel van.  They will park in the car spaces, unload, and leave.

Item 7 – agreed

Item 8 – broken boards will be repaired

Item 9 – informational

Item 10 – no vending machines

Item 11 – no signage changes proposed.  Banner signs have been removed

Item 12, 13 – informational

Item 14 – drums will be removed

Item 15 – agreed

Item 16 – agreed

Item 17 – agreed

Item 18 – there is only a potable well, no water service to the site

Item 19 – agreed

Item 20 – informational

Item 21 – informational – agreed

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report dated 1/5/05:

 

Item 1 – addressed

Item 2 – addressed

Item 3 – striping will be removed and a notation will be added to the plans

 

Mr. Meyer asked how many cars that are there for service are normally parking in the existing 9 stalls.

 

Mr. Atkins said he is told no more than 3.

 

Mr. Meyer said at rush hour, for people at the pumps who want to use the convenience store, there are only two spots to accommodate them.  Otherwise, they would have to make a right turn and go past the bays to get to the other parking spaces.

 

Mr. Atkins said that is correct, but it is fairly unlikely.  There will be no prepared food.  Customers will be in and out in a minute.  They would probably leave their car at the pump.  Or, they may park at the store and after making their purchase they would pull up to the pump to get gas.

 

Ms. Dargel asked how many cars can be accommodated in queue for the gas pumps. 

 

Mr. Atkins said it would be 5 or 6 vehicles.  At this station there are 8 fueling points, and that would minimize the amount of queuing. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there will be an ATM machine.

 

Mr. Atkins said no.  There will be lottery ticket sales.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said when this site was previously before the Board, there was a groundwater recovery site.  I believe there are still monitoring wells.  What do we know about the integrity of the site to support a convenience store?

 

Lisa Frantz, Real Estate Manager with Kimber Petroleum was sworn in.  She stated Kimber put in a new well when the station was built.  We had to test the water quality before we could use it. Water samples have to be given to the County every year. 

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the Board may want to place a condition that the Board of Health has to approve the water with a single test for the initial operation of the convenience store.

 

The applicant agreed to get the appropriate Health Department approvals for a food sales establishment.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application.  It is less intense than the existing application, which is good, especially since it borders the Black River.  Pre-existing nonconforming conditions are not being expanded.  Approval is subject to all items agreed to and subject to approval by the Health Department and all other agencies deemed necessary.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

 

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

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:45 p.m.

 

                                                Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/