A regular
meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury
was held on the above date at 7:30
p.m. with Chairman Scott
Meyer presiding. After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman read the “Open
Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Meyer,
Larry Sweeney, Jim Rilee, Michael Shadiack, Steven Alford, Charles Bautz, Gary
Behrens, Lisa Voyce. Teresa DeVincentis arrived at 7:35 p.m.
ABSENT: Richard Zoschak, Joseph
Schwab.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary
Mr. Meyer announced application S-19-05
– Auto Zone will not be heard and is carried to 9/7/05.
Minutes of 7/6/05
and 7/6/05 executive
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Discussion. Corrections noted
and made.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, abstain; Mr. Meyer, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
M-6-05 – WILLOW
WALK II – RENAISSANCE – FINAL SUBDIVISION FOR 2 LOTS LOCATED ON MARY LOUISE
AVE. BLOCK 6201, LOT 5.1, 5.2 IN AH-3A ZONE
ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: July 20, 2005
Memorialized: August 3, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF AMERICAN RENAISSANCE PLAZA ASSOC. LLC
FINAL
MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
BLOCK
6201, LOT 5
APPLICATION
NO. M-6-05
WHEREAS,
American Renaissance Plaza Assoc. LLC (hereinafter known as the
"Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board
(hereinafter known as the "Planning Board") for final major
subdivision approval on December 4, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the
application was deemed complete on 7/20/05; and
WHEREAS, a
public hearing was held on 7/20/05, notice being required, at which time the Planning
Board rendered its decision on the application; and
WHEREAS, it
being determined that the Applicant has complied with all of the rules,
regulations and requirements of the Roxbury Township Land Development Ordinance
and that all of the required provisions of the compliance have been filed with
the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the
Planning Board has made the following findings and conclusions based upon the
testimony and documentary evidence produced by the Applicant and by the
Planning Board staff:
1. The subject property consists of a total of 6.337
acres divided between the AH-3A and AH-3B Districts. The AH-3A Affordable
Housing District contains 2.57 acres located adjacent to Lakeside Village and
the AH-3B Affordable Housing District contains 3.76 acres located adjacent to
the Dellamo tract. Situated to the west is Drakes Brook and Emmans Road Park, to the
north is the Dellamo tract, to the east is Ledgewood Mall and to the south is Lakeside Village and
Willow Walk pond.
The property, now known as Willow Walk II/Renaissance
Plaza, was previously approved for a three-story 69,768 square foot office
building as a component of the original Willow Walk development.
By Resolution approved 10/24/01 (memorialized 1/9/02), the
Applicant was granted a preliminary site plan and major subdivision approval.
A three-story, 35-unit low and moderate income Mt. Laurel rental building is to
be constructed on 2.57 acres in the AHA District, and 42 market-rate units (12
townhomes and 30 manor homes) are to be constructed on 3.76 acres in the AH-3B
District.
The Applicant is now before the Board seeking final
major subdivision approval to divide the tract into the respective 2.57-acre
and 3.76-acre parcels.
2. In support of its application, the Applicant
submitted preliminary site plan and final subdivision plans consisting of 13
sheets prepared by Schoor DePalma bearing a revision date of 7/1/05. The
Applicant also submitted final subdivision plat prepared by Schoor DePalma
bearing a revision date of 7/1/05. A report concerning the application were submitted
by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 7/15/05.
3. At the public hearing of 7/20/05, the
Applicant was represented by Steven J. Tripp, Esq. Mr. Tripp noted that the
Consent Order requires that the affordable housing obligations relating to this
project will be binding on any subsequent owners of the subdivided parcels. He
stated that the Applicant was seeking final subdivision approval to facilitate
DCA approval of the homeowners association documents and to enable Applicant to
record the master deed. Mr. Tripp referred to his letter of July 20, 2005, which
details the status of the various easements depicted on the final plat. It was
agreed that the final plat would not be filed until the easements have been
approved by the Township Board attorney and those easements running to the
Township have been accepted by the Township Council. The easements will be
filed prior to or concurrently with the filing of the final plat. Applicant
also agreed to either pay under protest the off-tract contribution currently
assessed by the Township Engineer or pay a mutually agreeable adjusted amount
prior to filing the final plat. The Applicant agreed that the previous
preliminary site plan approval for the office complex would be abandoned.
Susan Berninger stated that the Applicant would make the revisions to the final
plat indicated in Mr. Bodolsky’s report.
A motion was made to conditionally approve the
application based on the recommendations contained in the report of Mr.
Bodolsky, as modified and supplemented in the course of the hearings, which
motion was duly seconded and favorably acted upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the final
major subdivision as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove.
This approval is subject to the following terms and
conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the
Board=s signature of the final subdivision plat:
1.
The parcels created hereby, regardless of their ownership, shall remain subject
to all requirements of the Consent Order between Wellfleet Developers, Inc. and
the Township of Roxbury and the Planning Board of Roxbury, filed January 2,
1997, as modified and supplemented by subsequent Court Orders, and to all
requirements of applicable developers agreements with the Township of Roxbury,
as such agreements may subsequently be amended.
2.
All easements depicted on the final plat shall be recorded prior to or
concurrently with the filing of the final plat, to the extent that they are not
already recorded. Prior to the Board’s signature of the final plat, all such
easements shall be approved by the Planning Board attorney, to the extent that
they have not been approved already. The easements running to the Township
shall be approved by the Township Attorney, to the extent that they have not
been approved already, and be accepted by the Township Council. Rights of
access via the internal roadway network to the utility easements shall be provided
for the benefit of the Township.
3.
All improvements depicted on the final site plan, shall be bonded by the
Applicant, with the exception of the buildings.
4.
Applicant shall pay in full its off-tract contribution as determined by the
Township Engineer. The Applicant may pay the previously-determined amount
under protest or make an unconditional payment of an adjusted amount mutually
agreeable to Applicant and the Township Engineer.
5. Except as expressly provided herein, all
conditions of the preliminary site plan and major subdivision Resolution
memorialized January 9, 2002, shall remain in full force and effect.
6.
Upon the filing of the final subdivision plat, the previous preliminary site
plan approval for the office complex will become null and void.
7.
The Applicant shall make the following revisions to the final plat:
A. The language of Section
13-3.508(5) regarding the notice of incomplete improvements shall be affixed to
the Final Plat.
B. The coordinate base shall
be based precisely on NJSPCS.
C. Outbound monuments shall be
set as indicated in the Surveyor’s Certification. The notation “to be set”
shall be removed from the plat. Certification from the surveyor regarding
these set monuments shall be added to the plat thereafter.
D. Bearings of offset
monuments to corners shall be presented for clarity.
E. All streets internal to
this project shall be depicted on the Final Plat with names approved by the
governing body. The appropriate certification from the clerk regarding street
approval shall then be added to the plat.
F. Condition 68 of the
Preliminary approval required the placement of concrete monuments along the
wetland boundary prior to Final Approval. They shall now be provided and the
final plat modified accordingly to designate them as being set.
G. Applicant shall comply with
the Board Engineer’s requirements regarding mathematical closure of the final
plat.
8. This approval is subject to all outside agency
review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.
9. If the Soil Conservation District, Morris County
Planning Board, or any other governmental body from which approval is necessary
causes, through their examination of the plans as recited in this resolution,
any revisions to said plans then, in that event, same shall be submitted to the
Planning Board Engineer. If the Planning Board Engineer deems said revisions
to be significant, the Applicant shall return to the Planning Board for further
review and approval.
10. This approval is subject to the payment of all
appropriate fees and taxes.
11. Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days
and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6
months of the date of memorialization. Failure on the part of the Applicant to
satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral
of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval
null and void.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting
of 7/20/05.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Mr. Germinario suggested an
addition to Condition #2 to state rights of access via the internal roadway
network to the utility easements shall be provided to the benefit of the
township.
Mr. Rilee and Mr. Behrens agreed
to amend the motion and second.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Bautz, abstain; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr.
Meyer, yes.
AGENDA
S-18-05 – KIDDIE
ACADEMY – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR DAYCARE LOCATED ON
RT. 206, BLOCK 9201, LOT 3 IN B1/A ZONE
Attorney Joel Kobert represented
the applicant. He said we have a color rendering regarding the landscaping
plan and we will address the issue regarding the fencing. I believe we have
satisfied the two reports from Mr. Bodolsky and Mr. Stern.
Mr. Meyer said he was there today
and there was a lot of planting, as well as the beginning of a board-on-board
enclosure.
Thomas McGrath stepped forward.
He referred to exhibit A-1, Site Plan color rendering of the most recent
supplemental landscaping plan, dated 8/3/05. He said along the Route 206
corridor, we have added shade trees and plantings along the corner. On the
sides of the sign we have added more vertical plantings. To the rear of the
parking lot is the dumpster enclosure which had chain link fence, and the
board-on-board enclosure has now been installed. To the eastern side, there
are numerous more plantings. On the corner are boxwoods. On either side of
the doorway there are also boxwoods. To the westerly portion along the front
of the building is the fenced enclosure which is based on the second
supplementary landscaping plan. Previously, the plan showed PVC fencing
completely encircling the septic facility. We have taken that out. The septic
field has been made into a lawn area with plantings along the outside edge.
From the front of the building there is a white PVC fence that ends about 32
feet from the side of the building. It is a 6’ high fence with a solid 4 foot
board-on-board face with lattice work across the top. In front of the fence is
a holly type bush that will shield the whiteness. The fence runs back to the
retaining wall and presently there is chain link fence there. Our intention is
to show that the white fence will continue along the wall adjacent to the
property line. Additionally, on either side of the driveway we have also
supplemented some of the previous planting. We have also removed the tree
that was in between the last septic tank and the dosing tank. We have removed
that as per the requirement of the Health Department. Another item that was
addressed was a concern about the height and seepage along the wall in the back
at the play area. We have done a revised plan and submitted it to the Health
Department. As of this afternoon, they have approved the septic field the way
it is.
Mr. Behrens said he has been to
the site and there have been improvements. Along the front on Route 206, there
are about 12 plantings that are dead and have not been removed. Also, on the
north side there are some dead plantings.
Bill Hotz said any of the
plantings that have died will be replaced.
Mr. Behrens said the fenced in
playground is not finished yet, correct?
Mr. McGrath said there is
material in there that has to be removed, and it will be cleaned up. The
playground area is not entirely completed. There is a portion of fence that
needs to be replaced as well.
Mr. Stern said it is his understanding
what the applicant seeks tonight is a sign-off on the landscape plan, and they
will meet all conditions as a condition of Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Kobert said that is correct.
Ms. Voyce said she doesn’t know
if replacing the plantings is practical in this 90 degree weather, prior to
C.O.
Mr. Stern said the code requires
at least a one-year maintenance guarantee.
Mr. Hotz said we are watering
every day. The plants that have died will be replaced prior to C.O.
Mr. Kobert said we agree to
replace any dead or dying plants by the end of October.
Mr. Meyer said since the last
meeting, are there any items that you are still asking for relief from?
Mr. Kobert said the front fence
is not as it was in the plan, but I think we have provided good security
protection, and the experts are satisfied with it. Initially, there was
discussion of just chain link in front. That is not what we are doing.
Mr. Stern went over the items in
his report dated 6/27/05 and said generally, with all the errors and
deviations, the end product is better than what the Board originally approved:
Item 1 – Addressed. Tree removal
permit will be revised. There has been a great deal of additional plants.
Item 2 – Applicant will amend
permit
Item 3 – Landscaping is underway
– will be installed as a condition of approval.
Item 4 – Instead of black chain
link, they have pushed the fence behind the building and it is white, about 4
feet high, with lattice on top. It is attractive, and they are providing
landscaping along the base of the fence.
Mr. Rilee said he currently
agrees with the fence, but might have an issue with the sign.
Item 5 – addressed
Item 6 – Mr. Stern said the
applicant has put in a slightly smaller sign with a bronze base and framework.
It has landscaping in front and the side. The appearance is somewhat muted.
To be determined by the Board.
Mr. Rilee questioned the
longevity of the sign itself.
Mr. Stern said it is metal
framework and base. In terms of durability, it is standard construction material.
Mr. Meyer said he prefers the
sign today vs. the one originally proposed.
Ms. DeVincentis asked what
happened with the septic.
Mr. Stern said the fence
originally enclosed the whole septic area and became a playground. That is
gone now. The fence is pushed back behind the front face of the building
wall. Activity is not occurring on the septic field any more.
Mr. Germinario asked for
clarification on whether the sign that was installed is acceptable.
The majority of the Board members
felt the sign is acceptable.
Item 7 – chain link fence has
been corrected
Item 8 – Board-on-board fence
enclosure installed
Item 9 – addressed
Item 10 – applicant feels the
lights are necessary for safety. They will be replaced with shoebox type
lights as a condition of approval.
Item 11 – floodlights are for
emergency purposes
Item 12 – agreed
Item 13 – additional landscaping
provided
Item 14 – addressed
Item 15 – done
Item 16 – done
Item 17 – done
Item 18 – will complete all
fencing
Item 19 – condition of approval
Item 20 – done
Item 21 – agreed
Mr. Kobert submitted a
conservation easement which has been recorded.
Mr. Rilee asked Mr. Kobert to
verify that all these items will be conditions and items agreed upon where
discussion has taken place.
Mr. Kobert said that is correct,
and an amended landscape plan will be submitted.
Mr. Bodolsky went over the open
items in his report dated 6/27/05:
Item 4 – Applicant will show on
the plan where the toe of the fill is on the north side of the building, and if
it extends beyond the property line they will pull it back – soil will be
pulled away from the trees.
Mr. Hotz said we have tied into
existing grade where the trees exist. If there is something that needs to be
addressed, we would agree.
Item 5 – agreed to show details
of storage tank
Item 7 – agreed
Item 13 – shield will be
installed as condition
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. DeMasi suggested the Board
consider memorializing the approval tonight
Mr. Kobert stated we would
request that and we do appreciate the Board’s patience.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the application subject to all items agreed to. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Mr. Rilee said the applicant has
now put a best effort forward to try to correct the problems. However, the
applicant should have built it the way they said they would at preliminary.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, abstain; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
M-5-05 – RALZONE –
SUBDIVISION FOR 5 LOTS LOCATED ON CAREY RD. BLOCK 4305, LOT
12 IN R-1 ZONE
Attorney Michael Roland
represented the applicant. He stated regarding the issue associated with the
adjoining property owner of Lot 13, after the last meeting, we met with our
engineer and redesigned a prospective plan so as to meet the sight line
requirements of ASHTO and the township. We were able to come up with a
conceptual design moving the entrance further to the north, which creates a
reserved strip that would be attached to Lot 12.05. I met with the adjoining
property owner’s attorney and gave him information from the traffic expert.
Last Wednesday, representatives of my client met with the property owner. We
had some degree of encouragement regarding proceeding on the original plan. I
have now been advised Mr. Tourney is not interested in cooperating with the
applicant. Secondly, we took the conceptual plan that we developed and brought
it to a greater level of completion, adding details regarding drainage and
other improvements. On that basis, I would like to introduce the application
change to the Board’s attention. We have not been able to provide copies of
the revised plan in advance, but have copies of the plans for the Board members
with us this evening.
Mr. Roland distributed ledger
size copies of the plan to Board members (marked A-3, concept plan dated 8/3/05).
Mr. Murphy, engineer for the
applicant, described the revised concept plan for the Board. He stated we
looked at the site to see how we could get the 30 x 100 foot sight triangle
easement required by the township and still get the yield of 5 lots. We
shifted the road about 80 feet to the north, which provides us with a 100 x 30
foot sight triangle easement to the south and north. We have extended the
roads back into the rear of the cul-de-sac. The easements are fully controlled
by our development. It exceeds the ASHTO requirement and the more stringent
Roxbury requirements. We designed the road to go back farther into the site.
There is now a strip of land that will be left as natural vegetation or part of
the landscape plan for trees. The first lot on the left, 12.05, is 56,000
square feet in size, a lot of which is that strip of land and the water quality
treatment area.
Mr. Murphy showed the areas of
undisturbed vegetation. The first part would the strip just described. The
two lots on the cul-de-sac are more conforming. Behind those lots are areas
that would be left in a vegetative state. Lot 12.02 has a large side yard, and
could be left natural as well. As you come along the road, we would be
extending the storm sewer and sanitary sewer. The storm sewer would then
connect into the detention basin and would discharge in to the storm sewer.
The sand filter would have an underdrain out to the storm sewer and could
overflow into the detention basin area. These two features of the
stormwater control system are located on lots 12.01 and 12.05. A homeowners
association would maintain the features. We have not incorporated curbstones
and sidewalks. We have shown that there would be grass swales along the side
of the road to limit impervious area. There are two inlets midway into the
road and another set to get the water into the sand filter and then into the
detention basin. The 5 proposed lots would be sewered.
Mr. Murphy said neighbors were
concerned about the proximity to the drywells. We have shown that the drywells
that would be constructed for Lot 1 would be in the front of the lot. The
drywells for the lot with the detention basin would be on the side of the
house. There would be nothing close to the property lines as far as
underground stormwater management.
Mr. Stern asked why Lot 12.01
wouldn’t be maintaining the detention basin?
Mr. Murphy said they would
maintain it as far as mowing the lawn, etc.
Mr. Stern said there are lots in
the township where the homeowner maintains the basin on their lot.
Mr. Murphy said his understanding
of the stormwater regulations is that it can’t be the burden of one property
owner.
Mr. Germinario said you wouldn’t
put the entire obligation on the property owner, but requiring them to do
ordinary maintenance is ok, as long as the homeowner’s association does the
major extraordinary maintenance obligations. That is the way it will be
framed in the resolution.
Mr. Rilee asked if there would be
any variances required with the new lot design.
Mr. Murphy said no. The
appendages to the lots add to the area, so there are no area variances.
Mr. Rilee asked if the lot with
the long appendage would be consistent with the ordinance if the appendage was
not there.
Mr. Murphy said no.
Mr. Behrens said with the
elimination of sidewalks, it would require children to walk along the roadway.
Mr. Murphy said that is the
conflict between the RSIS requirements and the stormwater regulations. One
agency says to limit the amount if impervious coverage, and the other is saying
provide sidewalks, etc.
Ms. Voyce suggested the lack of
sidewalks may not be an issue with the small cul-de-sac. Drainage is more of
an issue here. Are there any setback variances required?
Mr. Murphy said no.
Mr. Stern said on my initial
inspection, there are a lot of things on the property. There is a lot of mature
vegetation that never was shown on the survey, including some along Carey Road.
While there are benefits to getting the sight easement, practically all those
trees will be obliterated. That is my concern with the design.
Mr. Murphy said we could reduce
it if we went to the ASHTO standard.
Mr. Roland said the applicant
will re-plant over 150 trees on the property.
Mr. Stern said the existing trees
should be located on the plans. That was mentioned in my original report. The
engineer mentioned the ASHTO standard. Maybe we should look at that and see if
anything of significance is preserved.
Mr. Roland said the indication we
got at the previous hearing was that the Board wanted us to go with the
township standards.
Ms. Voyce said the Board needs to
see both scenarios. We need to have the information to determine what would be
the best compromise.
Mr. Bodolsky said relative to the
sight easement, our standard calls for 30 x 100, but that is an approach for a
sight triangle that doesn’t have practical merit for this application. What is
important is for someone pulling out of this street onto Carey Road not
colliding with people coming up Carey Road or causing them any inconvenience.
That is addressed by the ASHTO standards. I would suggest that the applicant
needs to be cognizant of the safety issue first. I would steer the applicant
toward the ASHTO standard.
Mr. Roland said the applicant
will provide an alternate design showing the ASHTO standard and the impact it
has.
Mr. Bodolsky said some things
about this layout could be visually undesirable. The neck to the left of the
first reserve is designated as a conservation easement. If it is not, you
could have a fence along the road and the adjoining property line and it would
be visually bad and would look like a dog run. Conservation easement is the
only way of handling that area in an acceptable fashion. Another concern is
along lot 2.04, there is a string of mature trees. If you were to shorten the
cul-de-sac, it would eliminate a certain number of feet of roadway and would
get rid of the neck on the right hand side, and it would preserve those trees.
It may require a frontage variance.
Ms. Voyce said the applicant
still hasn’t addressed the concerns raised in discussions at the concept meetings.
It may result in a 100 to 150 foot reduction to the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Murphy said the way the
property is set up, the area you would want to cluster is in the back, not the
front.
Mr. Roland asked what that
discussion was about.
Mr. Murphy said there was
discussion on having some open areas on the property.
Ms. Voyce said there is critical
habitat in the back of the property. That will have to be addressed before the
changes are made to the plans.
Mr. Murphy said he does not
believe there is critical habitat there. We will address that. It was a typo.
Ms. Voyce said the Board needs to
hear why the applicant ignored the discussions at concept, and why you think
you don’t have critical habitat, when your EIS states that you do.
Mr. Murphy stated he misread the
database.
Mr. Roland said the applicant
intends no disrespect. We have reviewed the property from the standpoint of
locating 5 residences at or closer to Carey Road. I see no way you can put 5
lots on the property and still save the rear of the property.
Mr. Meyer said most members of
the Board were not at the concept. If there is something Ms. Voyce would like
to see, she should tell the applicant that.
Ms. Voyce said they understood
and said they would consider it. They can address the concerns in writing.
Mr. Germinario said many issues
have been raised by Ms. Voyce in her memorandum and in the hearings. It may be
beneficial for us to schedule a staff meeting before the next meeting, with Ms.
Voyce present. Such a meeting would require noticing.
Mr. Bodolsky said what Ms. Voyce
is promoting is a concept that would have zoning variances involved. If we
were to elect to go with that concept, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Board
would agree to those variances.
Mr. Rilee said we have not seen a
plan that has safety measures involved for the turning radius, or that they can
come up with 5 conforming lots. I know you can get 4 lots, and then the
clustering may be possible. I don’t think clustering is an option with 5 lots.
Ms. Voyce said there have also
been a number of technical questions that I brought up that also need to be
addressed.
Mr. Stern said because of the new
stormwater regulations, we are seeing things we haven’t seen before. We are
dealing with a proposal for no sidewalks and no curbs, and a sand basin. I do
have a concern about the dog run area and it would be problematic in
terms of maintenance.
Mr. Murphy said we had that on
the original plan as a wider roadway dedication. Some Board members felt it would
be better if it was attached to one of the properties.
Mr. Rilee also had concerns about
the reserve area.
Ms. Voyce asked if the staff
could represent her position on this, rather than her attending.
Mr. Stern said it is his
understanding Ms. Voyce wants to see a concept of how clustering could occur
closer to Carey Road to save the trees in the rear and reduce impervious
coverage, and the comments contained in her memo.
Mr. Meyer said the applicant will
have to meet with the staff and to also look at the roadway and that strip of
land.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
John Grapes, 16 Carey Road, was
sworn in. He asked if the storm basin is typical.
Mr. Murphy said it has a 3/1
slope, vegetation on top, grass on bottom.
Mr. Grapes said he is concerned about
it being right outside his front door. Also, giving approval to fit as many
houses as you can on a property is a concern.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
The application was carried to 9/21/05. Extension granted to that date.
There was a 5 minute recess at 9:00 p.m.
S-22-05 – DELL AVENUE
PROPERTIES – SOIL RELOCATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON DELL AVE. BLOCK 7101, LOT
17 & 18 IN I-3 ZONE
Attorney Lawrence Berger
represented the applicant. He stated we received a report dated 8/2/05 from Mr. Bodolsky. We agree to all items in the report, except for one. There are
issues to be resolved in the township regarding off site improvements. In the
interim we would like to begin moving soil. We would put up all bonds required
to be able to move the soil.
Mr. Bodolsky said in general, we
make a preliminary site plan approval conditioned on the soil moving
application and vise versa. The philosophy of not permitting this would be not
to encourage soil moving without a project affiliated with it. Clearly, you
have that here. My concern would be that we have an erosion and sediment
control plan approved for a development, and if they were to start soil moving
today and still be in discussions over administrative issues three months from
now, that should be stabilized in the interim.
Mr. Rilee suggested the
possibility that if the building doesn’t take place within a certain time, they
could provide stabilization to Mr. Bodolsky’s satisfaction.
Mr. Berger said Mr. Petillo has
an approval from Morris County Soil Conservation.
Mr. Bodolsky said that is for
putting up a building, graveled area, etc. There are provisions in any soil
approval that say if the site is inactive for 90 days it has to be temporarily
stabilized.
Ronald Petillo was sworn in. He
stated the plan is already approved as part of building plans. We are willing
to do whatever that plan requires, with stabilization if it is after the 90
days.
Mr. Petillo said there are some
administrative issues that have to be resolved. We just recently got the
compliance reviews from Mr. Bodolsky and Mr. Stern. We can’t get the time
tables moved up.
Mr. Berger said we have made a
proposal for the off-site contribution, and have not yet heard back from the
Township Engineer.
Ms. Voyce said she would rather
the administrative issues be resolved, rather than have an open site for
months.
Mr. Rilee said if it is
stabilized, he has no problem with it.
Mr. Germinario said there is a
provision that the applicant may commence soil moving prior to fulfilling all
conditions of preliminary site plan resolution provided that if construction of
site plan improvements have not commenced within 90 days of the approval, the
applicant will implement interim stabilization measures to the satisfaction of
the Board Engineer.
Mr. Petillo suggested a time
period of 120 days.
The Board agreed to 120 days.
Mr. Stern said before soil moving
activity occurs, a tree removal permit will have to be obtained, and the bond
has to be submitted.
Mr. Petillo agreed.
There was discussion on the route
of travel. It was determined the route of travel will be optional for both
sites. It will be either on Dell Ave, out to Rt. 46 to the McNear site or down
to Main Street in Wharton and out of the township. Hours of operation will be
the standard hours as per the ordinance.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the application. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
S-23-05 – ROXBUTY 2002 LLC
– AMENDED SITE AND SOIL APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9501,
LOT 9 IN LI/OR ZONE
Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented
the applicant. He stated we are here for an amendment to the soil moving
permit and the preliminary major site plan approval in order to continue the
construction of the stormwater infrastructure, retaining wall, landscaping and
gabion baskets, which is an erosion control measure. Also, we want to submit
the footing and foundation drawings to the Building Department for review. We
have been working under the soil moving permit for a period of time, and were
told in an attempt to put in the stormwater infrastructure we were exceeding
the bounds of the soil moving permit and that there were open issues of the
preliminary approval that had to be dealt with before construction. Additional
plans were file with the board and reviewed, and we had a meeting this past
Friday. As a conclusion, it was agreed we were in compliance with all the
requirements of the resolution with the plans to be amended and sent in, but
that there were 4 particular items to be addressed by the Board.
Grayson Murray, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in.
Mr. Nusbaum said regarding
Condition A, two areas of conservation easement were not covered. These are
two easements that affect our own by the rear property. One of them is for
ingress and egress, and on the easterly side is for utilities. The reason they
were not included is that we don’t have the power to cut off someone else’s
rights for access and utilities. The fact is they can’t use it anyway because
it goes to wetland. We are asking for a waiver from that provision of the
resolution so that we are in strict compliance.
Mr. Bodolsky read the provision
which states, “This variance is granted subject to the dedication to the
township of a conservation easement covering the areas beyond the limits of
disturbance depicted on the site plan, except the access road right-of-way”.
Essentially, everything that is not being disturbed on the site is subject to a
conservation easement.
Mr. Germinario said the applicant
can still give a conservation easement with the proviso the land is already
encumbered by the easement rights of a third party.
Mr. Nusbaum agreed, as long as it
doesn’t hold up the site work.
The Board determined this will
become a condition of final.
Mr. Nusbaum said #78 in Mr.
Bodolsky’s report states there was a condition that Mr. Bodolsky was to review
the maintenance manual relating to the drainage. The maintenance manual was
sent to DEP, reviewed, and approved by them. We are of the understanding that
they pre-empt the field and it isn’t open to municipal interpretation.
After discussion it was
determined Mr. Bodolsky will review the manual to ensure the items required are
contained in the manual, and that if they are not, the township conditions will
be added to the manual. It is not necessary to submit the addition to DEP.
Regarding Item #106, Mr. Nusbaum
stated we are waiting for a response from the Township Engineer regarding the
off-site contribution. After discussion, it was determined this will be a
condition of final approval. The applicant will acknowledge they are taking
the risk with their eyes open.
Item 114 – Mr. Bodolsky is to
review the approvals from other agencies. Mr. Nusbaum stated as yet, we don’t
have the NJDOT major access permit. Mr. Nusbaum submitted a letter dated 8/1/05 (marked A-1) from DOT which states, “The department issued comments for the above
street permit application in May and June 2005 which the applicant responded to
on July 14, 2005. We concur with the design of the new Phillips Way intersection
with Route 46 which will include only a left turn egress restriction and have
no outstanding comments with respect to this new public street design. Our
ongoing review should be completed within the next 30 days and only relates to
traffic impacts at off-site Route 46 intersections that were studied by the
applicant. As soon as the traffic review has been completed, the department
anticipates issuing the street permits to the township for signature”. We are
willing to undertake the risk of construction while awaiting that permit.
Mr. Bodolsky said normally
speaking, site improvements don’t start until all outside approvals are
obtained.
Discussion. It was
determined the applicant can go forward with the work
Mr. Nusbaum said the remaining items
discussed at the meeting on Friday will be addressed in revised plans.
Mr. Germinario said you are only
asking to amend preliminary site plan approval on these 4 items.
Mr. Nusbaum said that is correct,
and on submission of revised plans as per the compliance reports from Mr. Stern
and Mr. Bodolsky, that they will be signed off on.
Mr. Stern said the applicant
wants to move forward while the machines are there and not wait for our
review. They want to move ahead with soil activities, landscape the area where
there is the final grade, do some piping, retaining wall, etc.
Mr. Germinario said then the soil
permit will also be amended to say they are permitted to do the activities that
are outlined in Mr. Murray’s letter of 7/6/05 – modular block retaining wall
with gabion lined baskets, construction of additional storm piping between the
locations enumerated, associated landscaping, submit footing and foundation
drawings to obtain a permit from the appropriate municipal department. Once
this specific work is done, all other activities stop until there is full
resolution compliance.
Mr. Rilee said there may be some
concern about the retaining walls.
Mr. Bodolsky said we still had
outstanding questions on the wall calculations. Before they are constructed,
there needs to be a plan approved.
The applicant agreed.
Mr. Germinario said any motion to
approve would include approval to amend the site plan approval to defer
compliance with conditions a, 78, 106, 114 until final approval and to permit
the applicant to move forward with submission of permits for footing and
foundation prior to resolution compliance. Secondly, to amend the soil permit
to allow the activities outlined in Mr. Murray’s letter of 7/6/05 prior to resolution compliance.
Mr. Bodolsky said the DOT permit
should not be a condition of final.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the application as outlined, and to make the approval effective
tonight. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
S-21-05 – MAYBURY DOUGLAS
ASSOCIATES – AMENDED SITE PLAN
FOR SIGNAGE FOR
LEDGEWOOD SHOPPING CENTER
LOCATED ON RT. 46/HOWARD BLVD. BLOCK 6502, LOTS 1 & 2 IN B-3 ZONE
Attorney Peter Wolfson
represented the applicant.
Mr. Germinario said you are here
asking to amend preliminary site plan approval by modifying a particular condition.
There is no information to the effect that the original applicant and owner
consent to the applicant.
Mr. Wolfson stated Mr. Riback
signed the application.
Mr. Wolfson stated the applicant
is developing a space in the mall consisting of 3,506 square feet for a Dunkin
Donuts franchise. The resolution was approved 4/7/04, and memorialized on 5/19/04. Condition 30 said all signage shall consist of red lettering on a white
background except for White Castle. We are seeking relief from the condition
to our client, who is a Dunkin Donuts franchisee to utilize the nationally
advertised and trademark logo on the signage for their use. That includes
façade signage and placement on three pylon directory signs on the site. In
the application, we set forth a rider on background on a Federal Act, the
Lanham Act which seeks to protect federally protected trademarks so that
businesses who spend millions of dollars on advertising can be protected. The
act prevents the requirements that might seek to amend that trademark as to
content and color. My client respects the intent behind the condition and the
attempt to get uniformity, however, we submit we don’t offend the intent of the
condition.
Mr. Alford asked if it is correct
the whole front of the mall will be red lettering except for Dunkin Donuts.
Mr. Wolfson said that is not
correct. There is a Dominos Pizza that has their own logo. There is also
white on a red background.
Mr. Stern said this introduces
orange and purple.
Mr. Wolfson said the colors are
actually pumpkin and plum. The project architect will show that the tones here
are practically indiscernible from some of the shades of red that have been
placed there.
Mr. Rilee said when there was
discussion during the original application, it was mentioned we should address
the whole sign package for this mall. I don’t want to have to go down the path
of seeing every single sign having an application on this. I think it is
incumbent on the mall owners to put together an application for a signage
package for this mall. If some of the Board members feel strongly about the
two-colored signage, it could be a moot issue. But, I don’t think it’s
appropriate of going over one sign at a time.
Mr. Behrens asked if this is just
for the sign on the building.
Mr. Wolfson said no, it is for
the façade sign, and 3 pylon signs.
Mr. Stern said, at this point,
there is no other tenant identified on all 3 pylons?
Mr. Wolfson said that will be
addressed.
Ms. Voyce asked if we allow
directional pylon signs in the middle of the mall.
Mr. Stern said they are just 4
square feet in area. The proposal is to take the three freestanding signs, one
on Rt. 46 and one on Howard Blvd. All those pylons are all red on white,
including White Castle.
Ms. Voyce said that would provide
them with a certain advantage over other tenants. I agree with Mr. Rilee that
there should be complete sign package for the mall.
Mr. Stern stated agreed it should
be dealt with in a comprehensive fashion with both mall owners to set criteria
on how to handle this.
Mr. Germinario said what the
Board may want to still hear the testimony tonight, and it will still be
relevant as to where this sign will fit into the comprehensive package. The
Board could hear the testimony and then require the submission of a
comprehensive plan of the entire mall for their review.
Mr. Alford asked why we gave
Dominos approval for their sign.
Mr. Germinario said only the
existing tenants, with leasehold rights, would be allowed to maintain those,
and new applicants would have to comply with the approved colors.
Ms. DeVincentis said she
personally feels name recognition and site recognition is a factor, and
restricting them is not what I would have done if I was on the Board at the
time of approval.
Kevin Maybury, principal in the
business, was sworn in. He said he has been a franchisee for 15 years. He
owns 12 Dunkin Donut shops – in Ledgewood, Chester, Berkeley Heights, Denville
and various others. We propose to operate in this mall. As part of the agreement,
we are required to use the logo. I also desire to for a safety factor, and the
majority of our customers are impulse buyers, and the sign can be seen from a
distance on the highway. Color is critical. The safety relates to the ability
to recognize the fact that there is a Dunkin Donuts there in time to make the
maneuver off the highway. Pursuant to the franchise agreement, 5.9% of the
10.9% weekly fees are for marketing and signage. We use the logo at all my
other franchises. This has never come up before. We also have the logo on
several state highways, such as Rt. 78 and Rt. 80. We are already on Rt. 46
and will be on Rt. 80 with proper colors.
Mr. Rilee asked if the lease has
been signed and if Mr. Maybury was informed by the owner of the sign agreement.
Mr. Maybury said he did sign the
lease and is not aware if he was informed.
Mr. Behrens suggested considering
the signs on the road as the signs with proper colors, and keep the sign on the
façade consistent with the red and white.
Mr. Wolfson said the condition we
are seeking relief from excepts out White Castle as to their store signage.
Ms. Voyce said they are not in
the strip.
Mr. Meyer asked if all Dunkin
Donuts have the logo.
Mr. Maybury said he is not sure.
Mr. Stern said there are similar
situations in Washington Township and Mercer County.
Mr. Stern asked if the landlord
notified you the restriction of red letterings on a white background
Mr. Maybury said that may have
come up after the lease was signed, but I felt strong about the ability to
attempt to get our colors, and I was familiar with the Lanham Act.
Mr. Germinario said the franchise
agreement requires you to use the logo. Does it say you have to use it on
every single sign to advertise the business? You are using it on the highway
signs, on the accessories such as cups, etc.
Mr. Maybury said he is not sure
if it is a violation of the franchise agreement, but what brings in the
customer is the sign.
Mr. Bautz asked, if their lease
expires, would we be going through the same thing?
Mr. Germinario said potentially,
yes. I agree doing this on a case-by-case basis will leave it open to have
every one of the tenants come in for a sign.
Mr. Wolfson said this is a
national trademark retailer and is entitled to the protection of the Lanham
Act. In other towns where it appears there was a similar attempt to get as
uniform signs as possible, we understand that, but in each of those cases, the
national trademarks are respected and they exist. The fact that in one particular
town that particular operator chose not to spend the money and effort to pursue
this is irrelevant to my client under this federal protection act. We did an
extensive brief and had discussions with the Board Attorney. It is our
position we are entitled to use the logo. We wanted to be sensitive to the
concerns, and feel this is a reasonable request.
Mr. Meyer suggested the Board
hear the witnesses. The feeling is that the Board will want to hear testimony
on a comprehensive sign package from the owners of the shopping center.
Ms. Voyce said in the 3rd
paragraph of the applicant’s statement it states “some courts have
concluded . . . .”. That statement would indicate some courts have not
concluded that.
Mr. Germinario stated he will
answer that question at a later date.
An exhibit of drawing SP1 was
marked A-1.
Frank Truillo, architect for the
applicant, was sworn in and gave his educational and professional background.
He referred to the exhibit A-1 and showed the space to be occupied by the
applicant and the three freestanding signs on the site. A second exhibit
board, marked A-2, showed 7 photos. The four photos at the bottom are
accurate, except for the computer enhanced one of Dunkin Donuts. The other
three photos were of the freestanding signs showing where the Dunkin Donuts
logo signs are proposed.
Mr. Truillo described the photos
of the proposed signs.
Mr. Shadiack asked if the two
existing signs would be combined into one sign.
Mr. Truillo said yes. The
current signs over the existing two spaces were 2’6” x 8’ each for a total of
16’ in length. We are reducing it slightly to 15’6” to comply with the
ordinance.
Mr. Stern said the code says a
façade sign can’t exceed 60% of a tenant space. Is the height consistent with
the other signs?
Mr. Truillo said they will comply
with the 60% and the height is consistent.
Mr. Stern asked why the applicant
didn’t use the full width on two of the freestanding signs.
Mr. Maybury said that is all that
was available.
Adrian Humbert, professional
planner for the applicant, was sworn in. He stated he reviewed the application
and the condition we seek relief from, and the ordinance. The conclusion I
have reached is that from a planning perspective, the signage is national brand
signage. That is the only signage protected under the Act. I believe the
proposal is reasonable and that the signage is properly located. Looking at
the photos, the part of the sign pertaining to Dunkin Donuts, it is my view the
two colors blend very well with the reds that predominate on the present
signs.
Mr. Humbert referred to a photo
board marked A-3, and stated the present signs are predominantly red. On
exhibit A-2, the areas shown for the Dunkin Donuts are in the standard Dunkin
Donuts colors, pumpkin (orange) and plum which is in the red family. From that
perspective, I think the signs with the additions proposed will fall within
what the ordinance calls for. The ordinance calls for a consistent design
theme using similar elements such as material, size, background, letter
coloring, letter style, illumination and borders. The colors, based on the
size of the signs, take on the ambiance of the overall sign. A consistent
design theme is followed. Similar elements are not the same as identical ones.
From the perspective of the franchisee, the three prime areas of concern are
brand identification, brand consistency, customer recognition. I find what the
franchisee is proposing is similar to what a number of the studies say about
signage:
-
Message should be clear and unambiguous – this is
-
Sign must be distinguishable from the other signs –
-
Sign must be readable as to copy of symbols – it is recognizable
by the colors
-
What the person expects to see on the sign – familiar brands
identified in a familiar manner
-
Emphasis of the sign – nationally recognized color systems do
this well
-
Sign must be kept up to the standards of the use being identified
– the brand is the most important factor, and those types of signs will be
maintained in a credible fashion.
This sign is consistent with the
general design theme comments, but is not consistent with the red on a white
background. From the photos, you can see there is a variety of the reds used
on the signs. There is some variability. Specifically the façade sign for
Auto Zone, to my eye it appears to be on the orange side of the red spectrum,
very similar to the orange of Dunkin Donuts. TGIFridays has black letters on a
candy-stripe background. There are other anomalies in the signage already
present. There are many other national brands identified on the roadsides in
Roxbury. This proposal blends well with the center. This change in signage
that would not comply with the ordinance only pertains to the national brands.
The Act only refers to national brands and trademarks. A basis exists for
granting a design waiver for the sign in terms of its compatibility. The
ordinance says, except for the bulk regulations, if the Board determines the
signs are not within the intent and spirit and intent of the resolution, the
applicant request design waivers.
In answer to questions from Mr.
Wolfson, Mr. Humber said the appropriate relief relative to this condition is a
design waiver, not a variance. In terms of the proofs and concerns of the
Board, the standard for the granting of a design is to find the relief being
requested is reasonable. I believe it is, given the placement, context and
location of the signs. Also, it must be proved if the relief is not granted,
there would be impracticalities and/or hardship worked upon the applicant.
Impracticalities are a lower standard than a hardship.
Mr. Alford asked what color the White
Castle sign is.
Mr. Humbert said it is a faded
red.
Mr. Alford asked if you knew the
lease said you could only have a red sign, would you have still gone there?
Mr. Maybury said he is not sure.
Mr. Germinario asked if the lease
stipulate the landlord would have to approve any sign you put up?
Mr. Maybury said he is not sure.
Mr. Wolfson urged the Board not
to let the consideration of this narrow request for one tenant be about what
the client knew or did not know. The request is a good faith, straightforward
request. The consideration has to be about the simple request to modify the
condition and grant a design standard waiver.
Mr. Stern stated considering all
the existing signs are red or shades of red, doesn’t it take things out of
proportion to have the Dunkin Donuts sign?
Mr. Humbert said the bottom half
of the sign is a different pattern than the rest of the sign. That is the
spacing that must have been approved by the Board as part of the site plan. I
believe those spaces are allocated by the amount of square footage. As a
national franchise
Mr. Rilee said this is not just a
minor one-time thing. This site hasn’t gotten its final approval. I am very
disappointed in the landlords. I agree with the applicant in concept. I think
we need a full sign package from the two landlords. Auto Zone is not in
compliance and they don’t have their final yet. That sign was supposed to be
red. The landlords should be aware of the Board’s concerns.
The application was carried to 9/21/05. The applicant granted an extension to that date.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 11:00 p.m.
Dolores
DeMasi, Secretary
lm/