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,
Charles Bautz, Gary Behrens, Mayor Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Joseph
Schwab, Teresa DeVincentis, Jim Rilee.
ABSENT: Steven Alford, Lisa
Voyce, Larry Sweeney.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Tom Bodolsky.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary.
Mr. Meyer said Application
S-19-05, Auto Zone, will not be heard and is carried to 8/3/05.
Minutes of 6/15/05 and 6/15/05 executive session
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Rilee seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
LETTER FROM ATTORNEY LAWRENCE
FOX FOR AN EXTENSION ON MORRISTOWN CORNERSTONE
ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: July 6, 2005
Memorialized: July 20, 2005
IN THE MATTER OF MORRISTOWN
CORNERSTONE BUILDING ASSOC., LLC
EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
BLOCK 9501, LOT 6
APPLICATION NO. S-7-02
WHEREAS,
Morristown Cornerstone Building Assoc., LLC (hereinafter known as the
“Applicant”) obtained preliminary site plan approval from the Roxbury Township
Planning Board (hereinafter known as the “Planning Board”) on 8/28/02; and
WHEREAS,
the Applicant has requested from the Board an extension of one year pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 40:55D-49c; and
WHEREAS,
a public hearing was held on 7/6/05, no notice being required; and
WHEREAS,
the Board has balanced the public interest in favor of implementing the new requirements
of the Land Development Ordinance against the hardship to the Applicant, and
has determined that the requested extension for the preliminary approval for
one year should be granted.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby grant the
requested extension of the Applicant’s preliminary site plan approval for an
additional period of one year pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-49c, provided that
the Applicant shall comply with the Mandatory Mt. Laurel Development fee in
effect at the time of issuance of a building permit, pursuant to Ordinance
13-7.829 or any successor provision thereto.
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 7/6/05.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Zoschak, seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes;
Mr. Meyer, yes.
LETTER FROM ATTORNEY JOSEPH
VENA FOR AN EXTENSION OF RAINBOW MANAGEMENT
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION COMPLIANCE
Approved:
July 6, 2005
Memorialized: July 20, 2005
IN THE MATTER OF RAINBOW
MANAGEMENT CONTRACTING, LLC
EXTENSION OF THE TIME FOR
FILING MINOR-SUBDIVISION DEEDS OR
PLAT
BLOCK
4102, LOT 2
APPLICATION
NO. M-2-04
WHEREAS, Rainbow Management Contracting, LLC (hereinafter known
as the ”Applicant”) obtained minor subdivision approval from the Roxbury
Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the “Planning Board”) on 3/4/04 (memorialized 4/7/04); and
WHEREAS,
pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-47d, a minor
subdivision approval expires 190 days from the date of memorialization, if a
deed or plat has not been filed within that time frame; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the MLUL, N.J.S.A. 40-55D-47f, the Board
may extend the 190-day period if the applicant was prevented from filing
because of delays in obtaining legally required approvals, despite having
diligently pursued such approvals; and
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the Applicant was prevented from filing because
of delays in obtaining legally required approvals, despite having diligently
pursued such approvals, despite having diligently pursued such approvals.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby grant the
requested extension of time for filing of the Applicant’s minor subdivision
deeds for an additional period of 190 days pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-47f,
provided that the Applicant shall comply with the Mandatory Mt. Laurel
Development fee in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit,
pursuant to Ordinance 13-7.829 or any successor provision thereto.
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 7/6/05.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr.
Meyer, yes.
S-16-05 – ETEL ASSOCIATES –
SOIL RELOCATION APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 10/MARY LOUISE AVE.,
BLOCK 6303, LOTS 6 & 7 IN B-2 ZONE
ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
MAJOR
SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT
Pursuant to Chapter XVII of the General Ordinances of
the Township of Roxbury, Article 17-1 et seq. (the
"Ordinance), the Roxbury Township Planning Board (the "Board"),
having conducted a public hearing with public notice pursuant to the Ordinance,
does hereby grant to the Applicant identified herein a Major Soil Permit,
subject to the terms and conditions enumerated herein below.
1.
Applicant/Permittee: Etel Realty LLC
2. Application Number: S-16-05
3.
Property Identification: Block 6303, Lots 6 & 7
4.
Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s): Preliminary Site Plan
3/2/05
5.
Major Soil Permit Approval Date: 7/6/05
6.
Effective Date: 7/6/05
7.
Findings of Fact:
A. The Board has received an
Application consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-6, and the
Applicant has paid the application fee pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-7.1.
B. Proof of adequate notice of
this Application, pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-6.5, has been furnished to
the Board.
C. A public hearing was
conducted, in accordance with the Ordinance, and with opportunity for comment
by interested members of the public, on the following date(s):
D. In granting this Permit,
the Board has considered the factors enumerated in Section 17-6.6 of the
Ordinance. The Board has received and considered the following documents in
connection with this Application: (1) soil moving application dated ; (2) soil
movements stockpile plan by Bohler Engineering revised to 1/25/05; (3)
earthwork calculations by Bohler Engineering dated 1/25/05; and (4) reports of the
Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 5/27/05.
E. The Board has made the
following additional findings of fact:
D. This approval shall not
become effective until: (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes
and assessments due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all
conditions of the preliminary site plan approval have been fulfilled to the
satisfaction of the Board Engineer.
E. Applicant shall comply
with: (i) "Hours of Operation" established pursuant to Ordinance
Section 17-9d, as modified pursuant to paragraph 7.E.6 hereinabove; (ii)
"General Terms and Conditions of Operation" stipulated in Section
17-10; (iii) "Topsoil Restrictions", pursuant to Section 17-11; (iv)
"Depth of Excavation", pursuant to Section 17-12; and (v) "Final
Grades", pursuant to Section 17-13.
F. Applicant grants to the
Township Engineer, and/or his duly authorized agents, the right of entry to the
property to conduct inspections to determine compliance with this Permit.
G. This approval is subject to
all outside agency review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.
H. This Permit is subject to
the following additional terms and conditions:
1. All fill will be imported
to and exported from Applicant's site from/to a location outside the Township.
2. The route of truck travel
to and from Applicant's site from the borrow site and to the disposal site
shall utilize only Route 10 and State highways. No local roads shall be used.
3. The Erosion Control Plan
shall be modified to indicate the following note:
"Notwithstanding the approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan, the Applicant shall implement all measures needed to
satisfactorily control erosion, dust, and sediment transport as may be
reasonably determined by the Township Engineer during construction."
4. Applicant shall post fees
as follows:
Section 17-7.1 Application Fee - $250.00
Section 17-7.2 Soil Moving Fee - $323.00 ($0.15/cy
times 2,154 cy)
Section 17-7.3 Engineering Inspection Fees pursuant
to Section 13-2.404 of the
Township Ordinances
5. Per Section 17-8 of the
Ordinance, Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.
6. Applicant shall place hay
bales on the site to supplement planned silt fencing for erosion control to the
satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer.
7. In accordance with
Ordinance Sections 17-6.1(t) and 17-6.4, the Applicant shall stake out interior
improvements with appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township
Engineer, and a professional land surveyor shall stake out lot corners and
appropriate points on line.
8. Hours of soil moving
operations shall be limited to: 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m. weekdays only.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is an accurate recitation of the action taken by the Planning Board on the
approval date designated hereinabove.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve
the resolution. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
AGENDA
S-20-05 – FRESENIUS MEDICAL
CENTER OF KENVIL & KENVIL MEDICAL CENTER – CONCEPT APPLICATION FOR KIDNEY
DIALYSIS CENTER LOCATED ON RT. 46/BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD. BLOCK 4002, LOT 16 IN
B-2 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented
the applicant. He said this application is to use an existing building on Berkshire
Valley Rd. and Rt. 46 West for a Kidney Dialysis Center. The dialysis
center currently operates out of Dover General Hospital and are being forced to
relocate. They have about 95-100 patients who require dialysis 3 times a
week. There currently are no other facilities in the area to handle them.
Time is of the essence.
Mr. Meyer explained the procedure
for a concept review.
Mr. Meyer asked if there are any
State permits required for this type of facility.
Mr. Kron said it is subject to
the approval of the DCA, which we received, but based on comments, we are going
to turn the building around and will have to re-apply.
Ed McGinley said that is
correct. We also have Department of Health approval.
Mr. Kron said there was an issue
regarding the location of the driveways. There is an existing driveway on Berkshire
Valley Road which we will keep, and there is also an existing driveway on
Route 46. We have already received DOT approval for that. We had a traffic
engineer look at the site and asked his opinion on the Rt. 46 driveway. He
prepared a report, from Ricola Engineering, and said that driveway is
preferable. He said it is his opinion having driveways on both Rt. 46 and Berkshire
Valley road is preferable in terms of overall safety and capacity. The concept
proposes an ingress driveway on Rt. 46. The driveway would permit left and
right turns in. The left turn occurs in an area of Rt. 46 where sight
distances are excellent and there is a full shoulder to allow through traffic
to bypass the stopped vehicle. With the Rt. 46 driveway, the number of left
turns at Berkshire Valley Road is minimized. The NJDOT has approved a full
access driveway on Rt. 46. Changing it to an ingress driveway would require a
new permit.
Mr. Zoschak said ingress only
would be great as long as it could be clearly marked.
Mr. Germinario said at the staff
meeting, there was discussion on the possibility of people cutting through the
site.
Mr. Zoschak said at that time,
that was going to be a two-way driveway.
Mr. Kron said there will be minor
variances required. There will be parking in the front yard, but we will bank
some of the parking. There will be a 3-foot variance for front yard setback
because of a dedication to the County. Impervious coverage will be about 62%,
and we will ask for a waiver from the EIS as it is an existing site.
Rich Knudsen, engineer for the
applicant, stepped forward. He said the property is about 1.7 acres. A 3 foot
strip of land along Berkshire Valley Road would be dedicated to Morris County
along Berkshire Valley Road that reduces the site area to about 1.69 acres.
Currently there is a one-story masonry building with an area of about 16,000
square feet. There are 3 wide driveway entrances along Berkshire Valley Road
and the north side of the building with existing asphalt along the Berkshire
Valley Rd. frontage. There are underground gas vaults also toward the end of
the property on Berkshire Valley Rd. There is a wooded area and the front and
side yard are lawn. The existing building will remain and will be improved
architecturally. We proposed a one-way driveway in off of Rt. 46, and it will
be signed as such. There will be an ingress and egress driveway on Berkshire
Valley Road as well, as far away from the intersection as possible. We are
trying to make it less obvious for people to cut through. We are locating the
driveway back far enough to facilitate left turns in. The plan shows 67
parking spaces, of which 10 are being held in reserve along the front. If
that parking is required, they could be installed in the future. We have tried
to maintain as much landscaping in front of the building as possible. Some
minor walkways may be needed. The idea is to have the ability to enter medical
office spaces and tenant spaces and to have some landscape treatment at the
corner to give the site some interest. The main entrance to the Fresenius
Medical Care tenant space will be to the rear. Handicap spaces will be
provided. We have provided interior parking lot landscaping as well. Building
services have been put into an area in the rear and will be screened so they
are not visible. Deliveries will be by trucks about 30 or 40 feet long.
Tractor trailers are not anticipated. Patient drop-off will be at the
entrance.
Mr. Knudsen said a variance is
required for front yard setback. With the 3-foot dedication, the setback will
be reduced to 37 feet. A variance is required for parking setback from the
front property line. We show the reserved parking to align 10 feet from that
line. We are requesting a variance from the EIS, and for impervious coverage.
We have tried to reduce the coverage as much as possible. With the reserved
parking the coverage percentage will be a little less than 64%%. We propose an
infiltration system under the parking lot. That will reduce the impact of the
development on the stormwater issues in the Township.
Mr. Zoshcak asked why all that
parking is not needed.
Mr. Knudsen said Fresenius
Medical Care occupies about ¾ of the building. There will be office tenants in
the front. The Fresenius Medical Care patrons are mostly dropped off. The
bulk of the people who come are dropped off at the site and don’t have their
own vehicle. If in the future another tenant comes in, there may be a need
for more parking, hence the deferred parking spaces.
Mr. Rilee asked what the square
footage of the building is.
Mr. Knudsen said about 16,000
square feet.
Mr. Rilee said he has a problem
with the reserved parking, and thinks it should be eliminated. Also, you are
already getting relief on the sideyard setback. The drawing shows a sidewalk
on Berkshire Valley Road. Will that extend around to Route 46?
Mr. Knudsen said it does go
around.
Mr. Rilee said generally he likes
the concept except for the deferred parking.
Mr. Bautz said Lot 15 is vacant.
At the staff meeting, I had suggested you look into obtaining some of the lot.
Was that done?
Mr. Kron said we did not pursue
that. It did not come up at a later staff meeting. The owner did try to
contact the owner of that lot, and they had no response.
Mr. Meyer suggested they try
again.
Ms. DeVincentis asked why a
possible drop-off zone was not considered.
Mr. Knudsen said we show an
island about 16 feet long. We can certainly identify that area as a drop-off
zone, and will look into it.
Mr. Zoschak said he would support
a variance for the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Meyer said that would be the
preference, but we would want some input from our professionals.
Donna Buglsi said we will have 20
chairs in the new facility. Patients would be there for 3 ½ to 4 hours. We
are open 6 days a week from about 5 a.m. for staff, 6 a.m. for patients to 10:30 p.m. Most of the patients are gone about 9:00-9:30 p.m.
Mr. Kron stated the current
location is at Dover General Hospital and they are being forced out of there.
They are there on a month-to-month basis. There is no other place to treat
these patients.
Rosalita Mokhtar, architect for
the applicant, was present. She described the building, stating it is solid
masonry. We propose to coat the building with a material that will improve the
appearance. We propose two small medical offices with entrances off Berkshire
Valley Road. It is a façade that respects the streets and the main
entrance. We propose to accent the sides of the building fronting on Route 46
and Berkshire Valley Road. We show lots of windows and a canopy. The material
we are proposing is synthetic stucco or stucco with fiberglass reinforced
material.
Mr. Rilee said Ms. Mokhtar should
discuss the façade with Mr. Stern.
Ms. Mokhtar said the HVAC units
were originally scattered over the rooftop. Now, we have lumped them together
in the middle. We will have a large barrier that will look like a penthouse.
That plan has not been developed yet.
Mr. Zoschak said Mr. Stern was
looking for more décor to dress up the building.
Mr. Meyer said this is a very
important part of the Route 46 redevelopment.
Mr. Bodolsky suggested, due to
the applicant’s time constraints, the possibility of deeming the application
complete and having a formal hearing at the same hearing, if the Board agrees.
Mr. Meyer suggested the applicant
coordinate that with the staff.
M-6-06 – WILLOW
WALK II – RENAISSANCE – FINAL SUBDIVISION FOR 2 LOTS LOCATED ON MARY LOUISE
AVE. BLOCK 6201, LOTS 5.1, 5.2 IN AH-3A ZONE
Attorney Steven Tripp represented
the applicant. He said this application is for minor subdivision. The project
consists of affordable housing and market units. It was originally approved
with a subdivision that separated the market units from the affordable units.
Separate entities will represent the two unit types. Originally this was a
major subdivision because at the time there was some thought there might have
to be off-site water and improvements. It turned out there wasn’t. The
attorneys ruled it stays a major even though technically it is only a two-lot
subdivision.
Mr. Tripp asked if we need to
address completeness.
Mr. Germinario stated unless the
Board has any questions on that, we combine the completeness hearing and the
hearing on the merits. There is a detailed completeness memo from Mr.
Bodolsky, and he finds the application complete, subject to the granting of two
waivers for completeness only.
Mr. Tripp Checklist Condition #10
would be a condition of approval. The other one had to do with the pro rata
share of off tract contribution, which would also be a condition of approval.
The applicant addressed the
review letter from Mr. Bodolsky dated 7/15/05:
Item 1 – Mr. Tripp said the
resolution says you need subdivision approval on/or before Site Plan approval.
I don’t think the resolution ever required that we wait until we get final site
plan approval. The purpose of getting final subdivision now is to facilitate
two lots so that we go to DCA, get the homeowner’s association approved, get
the master deed approved, set up the entities. We have building permits.
Construction is taking place on the market units. It is time to set up the
separate ownership.
Mr. Germinario stated the issue
as to whether we can do final major subdivision approval before site plan
approval came up in January 2004. I issued an opinion at that time and I
indicated they could seek final subdivision approval prior to final site plan
approval, but not the other way around. I agree this is appropriate to allow
this to go forward.
Item 2 – Mr. Tripp stated the
Consent Order has several entities. In terms of the questions raised by Mr.
Bodolsky regarding enforcement, all the obligations run with the land. All of
the resolutions have conditions that are binding on all successors and assigns,
as are the terms of the Consent Order. There will be restrictions and
covenants recorded that will be enforceable by the town.
Mr. Germinario stated the Consent
Order, in paragraph 14, indicates the obligations of the order are binding on
all successors and interests and will run with the land. I will reiterate that
as a condition of final major subdivision.
Item 3 – Water main easement and
sewer easement – Mr. Tripp said grant of easements were reviewed by the
Township Engineer, Mr. Germinario and Mr. Bucco, and it was approved and sent
on. That is not the easement regarding water. It was Dellamo that raised the
question. That is separate from this. That easement is pending. When it is
formally accepted, it will be recorded.
Mr. Germinario said he agrees
with the statements Mr. Tripp made. Mr. Bucco and I have approved those
easements. Some or all of them are still awaiting Council approval. This
Board’s approval of the final subdivision would be subject to a condition that
all the cross easements, water and sewer easements, etc. would be filed prior
to the filing of the final plat.
Mr. Bodolsky said he spoke with
Mr. Kobylarz today. We are setting up well defined water and sewer easements.
He did confirm that there was no confusion relative to the water. It is a
township responsibility. However, he wanted me to ask about blanket access
easement to that water main. If you were to look at where the water main
touches Righter Road, it is not at the location of the roadway. Will the
public have rights to go into this roadway system?
Mr. Tripp said it won’t be gated
off, but it is not a public right-of-way. It is private roads.
Mr. Tripp said the water easement
gives the town the right to come on the property for repairs, etc. That was
either approved or is pending. We could add a phrase that includes access if
required.
Mr. Germinario said his
recollection is that there was a right of maintenance of the sewer line in that
easement agreement. That does imply the right to access for the purposes of
maintenance.
Mr. Bodolsky said the issue is
whether we have to access it through the 10-foot wide easement up a lawn or
whether we can go into the roadway.
Mr. Germinario said we can add
the language to the easement if necessary.
Item 4 – Roadway cross easements
were recorded. They were submitted and reviewed. They provide for
unrestricted cross access to both lots, and that establishes a maintenance
system.
Item 5 – addressed
Item 6 – Applicant will bond
whatever improvements are necessary, minus the buildings.
Item 7 –
-
Sight triangle easement across Dellamo tract was submitted and is
being revised.
-
Sight triangle at emergency entrance and end of Road A – at
Council for approval
-
Drainage easement for Righter Road ditch – deed book reference
will be added
-
Sight easement across Lakeside Village – has been approved – at
Council for approval
-
Righter Road – addressed
-
Water and Sewer – approved and pending
-
Rights of discharge – approved and has been recorded
Item 8 – Off-tract contribution –
condition of final
Comments on final plat #9 thru
#15.
Ms. Berninger said all will be
added prior to final.
Item 13 – Ms. Berninger said the
road names will be added to plan. The roads have not yet been constructed.
Mr. Germinario said there is a
Condition 11 in the preliminary that deals with the abandonment of the
preliminary approval for the office complex. My understanding is that Mr.
Tripp has no problem with abandoning that.
Mr. Tripp agreed.
Mr. Germinario said Condition 79
questions whether a traffic study was done, as required by the Township
Engineer.
Mr. Tripp said Mr. Kobylarz
acknowledged it was done.
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the final subdivision. Mr. Rilee seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
There was a 5 minute recess at 8:40 p.m.
S-4-05 – VILLAGES –
SUBDIVISION FOR 186 LOTS LOCATED ON SHIPPENPORT RD.,
BLOCK 11201, LOTS 1, 2, 3 IN R-5 ZONE
Attorney Steven Tripp represented
the applicant. He stated we have scheduled a staff meeting with Mr. Stern and
Mr. Bodolsky for next week. Until we do that, we will not have a lot of
testimony. We thought we would discuss the conditions of the preliminary
approval, which will have to be modified. I sent Mr. Germinario a letter
identifying all conditions that need to be either modified, or have been superceded.
Mr. Bodolsky suggested we get the
Township Engineer involved on the technical issues.
Mr. Rilee said he agrees, and
rather than spend the Board’s time going over the issues such as the rainfall
issue, I think the Board professionals should work with the applicant’s
professionals.
Mr. Germinario said Mr. Tripp’s
list represents a consensus between the two lawyers on the conditions that need
to be addressed. Mr. Bodolsky’s letter has some additional issues.
Mr. Tripp went over the
conditions:
Condition 1 – water supply – Mr.
Germinario will draft language as agreed to in Court or between the parties.
Condition 2 – Mr. Germinario said
that was settled by a Settlement Agreement
Condition 3 – superceded by Judge
Stanton Order – There is still a 6 year period of immunity, but it begins when
water becomes available – will be referenced in resolution
Condition 8 – Mr. Bodolsky
suggested adding the language unless specifically noted to the contrary in
the resolution.
Condition 19 – discussion deferred
to staff meeting
Condition 22 – has been
superceded. Those are installed. It was a DEP determination and will be in
the factual findings.
Condition 28 – Orben Drive
resurfacing – will be clarified
Conditions 32, 33, 34 –
Shippenport Road improvements - subject to DEP approval – plans were
developed to satisfy Mr. Kobylarz and the State Historic Preservation Office.
Those plans are currently in Mr. Kobylarz’s office – subject to his review.
Ms. Berninger said the plans are
reaching final status. The plans for the realignment will be presented to the
Board with Mr. Kobylarz present at the meeting.
Condition will be modified
accordingly.
Condition 47 – technical –
vertical alignment – will be modified
Condition 48 – Ms. Berninger said
(referred to exhibit A-3) there had been discussion on flipping Road A to help
preserve remnants of the Canal. That would require more wetland buffer
reduction. Our wetlands consultant looked at it, and we couldn’t flip the
orientation of Road A. There was discussion about which remnants to preserve at
the State offices. In working with the State Office of Historic Preservation,
we eliminated one lot and reoriented some of the lots, and planted some
evergreen trees. SHPO replied via e-mail that the revised plan was acceptable
for preserving the Morris Canal Historic District and it was acceptable to
them. The Shippenport Road improvement plan will go back to SHPO for a final
review.
There will be a finding that the
condition is satisfied.
Condition 57 and 59 – Villages
Boulevard entrance - Ms. Berninger said there is an exhibit referenced in the
original resolution, which is lost, which showed some kind of shifting on Villages
Boulevard.
Mr. Tripp said we had discussed
moving the road without effecting the wall construction that was already in and
permitted. The plans approved were different in terms of the entrance.
Ms. Berninger said there was a
slight shift on the plan to avoid the headlights shining on a house. There was
talk of an additional shift to the north, which is shown in the resolution.
Ms. Berninger said after the
resolution, Mr. Cahill met with the homeowner and we did several concept plans
for additional landscaping. He decided to do his own landscaping, and I met
with him this Spring about the roadway and he said his agreement with Mr.
Cahill was landscaping, a guide rail, and a connection to the sewer. He would
like us to try and pipe the ditch further as well.
Mr. Bodolsky stated the intent
was to be sensitive to the headlight glare. By pushing the roadway to the
north, it would be more opposite his garage. The Board may make a finding that
the homeowner doesn’t object to the current location.
Mr. Rilee said he has heard from
the homeowner, and Ms. Berninger is correct.
Mr. Germinario said the condition
57 will be deleted. Agreement with the homeowner will be incorporated.
Condition 59 will be modified.
Condition 71 – to be addressed at
a later hearing
Condition 72 – The part of the
condition discussing onsite water storage on certain lots will be deleted
Condition 73 – delete reference
to onsite water tank
Condition 74 – will be modified
as per Mr. Kobylarz’s review
Condition 79 – will be modified
to be more broadly worded to say any manholes over 50 ft. depth will be approved
by the DPW.
Condition 100 – will be addressed
at staff meeting
Condition 142 – technical
revision – eliminate one T-wall requirement (poured concrete)
Condition 145 – will be addressed
at staff review
Condition 160 – new lot numbers
Condition 169 – to be discussed
at staff meeting
Condition 175, 176, 178 – will be
modified at end
Condition 197b – Ms. Berninger
said we currently have the individual permit application for the Shippenport
Road improvement plan, which includes the reconstructed dam/weir. We need to
change the language that it is an individual permit that is needed. We need the
town to remain an applicant.
Condition 201 – will be addressed
at staff meeting
Condition 208 – will be addressed
at staff meeting
Conditions at end – technical –
Mr. Germinario will modify the language and inform the Board of the changes
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORITON CLOSED
The application was carried to 9/7/05, and the applicant granted an extension to that date.
M-5-05 – RALZONE –
SUBDIVISION FOR 5 LOTS LOCATED ON S. HILLSIDE AVE.
BLOCK 4305, LOT 12 IN R-1 ZONE
Attorney Michael Roland
represented the applicant. He stated notice of this applicant was provided to
residents beyond 200 feet, especially those involved in sewer improvements
along Carey Road. He provided a more detailed notification to an adjoining
property owner, Mr. Tourney, regarding the impact of the application to his
property and the new front yard variance. The notice was given to Mr. Tourney,
and to his previous attorney Ronald Heymann. Tonight the applicant will
present testimony of Mr. John Harter, of Atlantic Traffic Consultants.
Mr. Meyer informed the public
that if they are here because of an interest in the sewer issue, that will not
be addressed tonight, and sewer hookups are not the pervue of this Board.
Mr. Harter said he has reviewed
the application and stated he has submitted a plan showing the front of the
site and Carey Road. Relating to the stop sign proposed for exiting movements,
it is set back about 20 feet from the road, and I would recommend pushing it
forward about 5 to 7 feet, provide a stop line and a double yellow line to
separate ingress and egress traffic. We are widening the road by 5 feet along
our site frontage. Going southbound, people would be potentially running into
curbing south of the site. I would recommend we provide a striped 4” white
line to define a shoulder across the frontage, about 3 feet off the face of
curb. The stripe would be to guide traffic so that it stays away from the curb
as it narrows. Sight distance is measures from the edge of traveled way.
Regarding sight distance, this is not an extreme case of safety with stopping
sight distance. Carey Road is relatively flat and straight in the area of our
site. All the references I am referring to is ASHTO, and the bible for that is
the policy on Geometric Design of highways and streets. RSIS refers to ASHTO
for sight distance purposes. The current version it refers to is 2001. The
town’s requirement was related to a sight triangle easement that we could not
obtain on Lot 13. The town requires 30 x 100. The point of this type of
easement is inappropriate for this case. That is an approach triangle. That
is for a situation where there is an uncontrolled or yield situation. What we
should be dealing with is departure sight triangle. In that case, we look at
stopping sight distance or desirable sight distance. Intersection sight
distance is greater and would be 390 feet in this case, based on 35 m.p.h. We
have prepared an exhibit (marked A-2) titled Intersection Sight Distance
Exhibit dated 6/29/05. The top shows a plan view, and the bottom shows a
profile of the sight line that is 390 feet for intersection sight distance.
The ASHTO guidelines say that distance back from the main road should be
14.4 feet back from the traveled way. That is how we have placed it on the
plan. That would be recommended with the shoulder line. We show that the
sight distance can be obtained. Mr. Bodolsky still has a concern with the fact
that the line slightly clips the area on Lot 13 and we don’t have control of
that area if someone were to something with that property. Even if we don’t
have control of that, the reality is that when people come to the intersection
they stop at the stop bar and then pull up to get a better viewpoint. The
front of the car is about 10 feet behind the shoulder line. If the car were to
move forward, the car would then be 3 feet behind the shoulder line, we still
have the sight distance necessary for safety.
Mr. Zoschak asked if there is a
standard for the stop bar.
Mr. Harter said it is 4 feet
behind a crosswalk. In this case there is no crosswalk, so it is a judgment.
Mr. Harter said this is a case of
5 homes and the motorists will be very familiar with the area. The plan will
be amended consistent with my recommendations.
Mr. Roland asked Mr. Harter to
address the sight distances for motorists turning left.
Mr. Harter said to turn right,
one only has to look to the north. To turn left, one has to look in both
directions. On our property to the north, we have control and could have it
clear of obstructions. The issue is because of Lot 13 where we could not get
the easement. I have testified I believe we have sufficient site distance.
Mr. Rilee asked for Mr.
Bodolsky’s opinion.
Mr. Bodolsky said this is the
first applicant that found a glitch in the ordinance. The ordinance requires a
30 x 100 sight triangle, or compliance with ASHTO standards. They cannot do
the 30 x 100. I believe they cannot do the ASHTO standard either and be in
control. He is suggesting that they can get 390 feet. The reason for a sight
triangle is to ensure that can continue. They can’t do that. A related issue
is where he is measuring from. I contend that both curb returns should be the
same distance from the center line of Carey Road. I suggest the measuring
line is further into the site by 2 feet and actually encroaching across Lot 13
than what the testimony is. I think the Board would be venturing into a
dangerous situation by waiving sight distance requirements. This encroachment
can be eliminated by pushing the road toward Cornhollow. Doing that would
reduce the number of lots from 5 to 4.
Ms. DeVincentis asked what the
sight distance is on Alexandria.
Mr. Harter said he does not
know. What is very constrained is if you head south down Carey and get to Hillside
Avenue, there is a sight distance issue there.
Ms. DeVincentis said she is
familiar with that area, and she doesn’t think moving it closer to Cornhollow
would be good because there are a lot of school buses going in and out of
there.
Mr. Bodolsky said the typical
standard for that is a separation of 150 feet. They can still do this and be
100% in compliance with all the standards.
Mr. Meyer said from personal
experience, the sight distance at Alexandria is good.
Mr. Harter said we had agreed
that we would continue the widening at the south side of the driveway.
Mr. Bodolsky said the roadway
would be widened for the entire frontage, and then taper in front of Lot 13.
Mr. Roland said it is the intent
of the applicant to taper beyond the new proposed road as it goes in front of
Lot 13 to the extent we have the rights to improve that area.
Mr. Rilee said regarding the
north side, we should get feedback from the Township Engineer to see what the
plans are for widening that.
Mr. Bodolsky said the curbline
would be set to match what is to the west on Carey. The taper would take place
to the east of this.
The applicant agreed to do what
Mr. Bodolsky said.
Mr. Roland asked if there is any
other object in the area.
Mr. Harter said there is a fire
hydrant. That is maintained by a private water company, Roxbury Water
Company. A 5-foot easement would be maintained around the hydrant. The
property owner would not be entitled to interfere with the area surrounding the
hydrant.
Mr. Rilee said that could be
relocated.
Mr. Roland asked if Mr. Harter
has reviewed the properties to the south and their sight distances.
Mr. Harter said both of the
driveways to the south appear to have trees adjacent to the driveways that are
within the sight triangle-type areas.
Mr. Rilee said he has concerns
about the sight distance. That needs to be addressed. It all goes back to Lot
13.
Mr. Zoschak asked how far the
road would have to be shifted.
Mr. Bodolsky said it appears it
would be about 50 feet, but there may be other considerations regarding lot
shape.
Mr. Bodolsky said my reading of
the standards is that the approach vehicle 1t 390 is actually seeing the car on
the new road, and possibly tapping his brakes and slowing down. The testimony
was that it would not impeded his progress. I believe the standard recognizes
he would go down to 85% of his speed. It is already affecting the flow a
little bit.
Mr. Bodolsky said his report
discusses other things on the interior of the site such as elimination of
curbs, etc.
Mr. Roland said that will be
addressed by Mr. Murphy. The applicant acknowledges there may be a benefit in
abandoning curbs and sidewalks as it improves the stormwater calculations.
Mr. Rilee said at the last
hearing we had discussed the strip of land on the other side of the road. If
this application stays as is and moves forward, I would ask that it be deed
restricted which would prevent Lot 13 from accessing that road down the lot and
prevent a building lot.
Mr. Bodolsky said as you move
into this development a 50 foot right-of-way may touch that lot.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
The application was carried to 8/3/05.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 10:10 p.m.
Dolores
DeMasi, Secretary
lm/