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

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.









Approved:  July 6, 2005

Memorialized:  July 20, 2005





BLOCK 9501, LOT 6




                                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.







                                                                                                                Approved:  July 6, 2005

                                                                                                     Memorialized:  July 20, 2005





BLOCK 4102, LOT 2



                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.




                                               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



5.  Major Soil Permit Approval Date7/6/05


6.  Effective Date7/6/05


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:


1.             The Applicant intends to import 586 cubic yards (c.y.) and export 1,568 c.y. of soil.


2.             The Applicant proposes to relocate within the site 2,578 c.y. of soil.


3.             The Applicant intends to obtain fill from and export fill to a location outside the Township.


4.             The route of truck travel to and from Applicant's site from the borrow site and to the disposal site will utilize only Route 10 and other State highways.  No local roads will be used. 


5.             The Applicant has agreed to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Planning Board Engineer dated 5/27/05.


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


7.             Pursuant to Section 17-17 of the Ordinance, the Board finds that strict application of the following Ordinance provisions would impose hardship and hereby grants waivers with respect thereto:  N/A


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


A.            Applicant shall post a performance guarantee, consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-8, in an amount indicated in Subparagraph H.5 below, as determined by the Board Engineer based on quantity of soil moved.


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


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


D.            This approval shall not become effective until:  (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes and 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.






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.




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.




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




No one stepped forward.




The application was carried to 9/7/05, and the applicant granted an extension to that date.




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.




No one stepped forward.




The application was carried to 8/3/05.


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



                                                            Dolores DeMasi, Secretary