A regular meeting of the Planning
Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Teresa
DeVincentis, Charles Bautz, Lisa Voyce, Gary Behrens, Michael Shadiack, Richard
Zoschak, Jim Rilee, Steven Alford.
ABSENT: Scott Meyer, Larry
Sweeney, Joseph Schwab.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary.
Since both the Chairman and Vice
Chairman were not present, Ms. DeMasi asked for nominations for a temporary
Chairperson.
Mr. Zoschak nominated Lisa
Voyce. Jim Rilee seconded.
There were no other nominations.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms.
DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes.
Ms. Voyce read the “Open Public
Meetings Act”.
Minutes of 7/20/05 and 8/3/05.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Discussion. Corrections noted
and made.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes on 7/20/05, abstain on 8/3/05; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens,
yes; Ms. Voyce, abstain on 7/20/05, yes on 8/3/05; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms.
DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Alford, abstain on 7/30/05, yes on 8/3/05.
COMPLETENESS
The Storage Group, LLC –
Block 9402, Lots 7 & 8
Mr. Stern said this property was
previously known as Southwinds. The property is currently zoned B-1A.
Self-storage facilities are permitted as a conditional use in the zone. This
application is for a self-storage building of about 101,000 square feet and is
under the maximum floor area ratio. The application has all completeness
information required. The staff recommends the application be deemed complete.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to deem
the application complete. Mr. Bautz seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
DeVincentis, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes.
The application was scheduled for
10/5/05.
J.C.B.J. Realty –
subdivision for property located off Emmans Rd. in an OS Zone
Mr. Stern said the prior
applicant for this property was Mark Lisa. The present proposal is for a
total of 2 lots on over 6 acres. All items have been submitted for
completeness, and the staff recommends it be deemed complete.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to deem
the application complete. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes.
The application was scheduled for
10/19/05.
AGENDA
S-19-05 – AUTO ZONE – FINAL
SITE PLAN FOR AUTO PARTS STORE LOCATED IN LEDGEWOOD SHOPPING CENTER, BLOCK
6501, LOT 2 IN B-3 ZONE
Ms. DeMasi said we have not heard
from them.
Mr. Stern said they have been carried
for two hearings now. They attended one public hearing and were carried twice.
Mr. Stern said the only thing
that has occurred since then was a site meeting with the township
professionals. I haven’t seen any activity on the site.
Mr. Germinario said the Board has
the option to deny the application without prejudice.
Mr. Zoschak asked what the
consequence of that would be.
Mr. Germinario said they would
have no final approval, and would be operating illegally. The Board could send
a recommendation to the Township Council that the Township Attorney initiate
enforcement action in Superior Court to shut down the operation.
Mr. Stern said at this point, I
believe the penalties are at around $16,000.00.
Mr. Rilee suggested Ms. DeMasi
contact Mr. Raths office to see if those fines are being collected.
Ms. DeMasi said the Township has
not received payment of the fines. They are collected at the end. Before they
get their C.O., they have to pay the fine.
Mr. Rilee said he would also like
the Board Attorney to send a letter to their attorney, Dalton Bennett, stating
if he is not here at the next meeting, and the items are not complete, we will
deny without prejudice and ask the municipal attorney to move forward with
closing their business. Both landlords should be copied on the letter.
Mr. Behrens said he had
understood that someone could overrule the fines, and they could be waived and
not paid.
Ms. DeMasi said they could go to
DCA, and they would make a determination what has to be paid.
Mr. Stern said there is an appeal
process, and the Township would have an option to present their case as well.
Ms. DeMasi said the time period
has run out on this application. We have only received an extension until
tonight.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to deny
the application without prejudice. Mr. Alford seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes.
S-24-05 – LORAIN
DEVELOPMENT – SOIL APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD.
BLOCK 12101, LOT 6 IN R-3 ZONE
Attorney Gary Platt represented
the applicant. He said we have received Mr. Bodolsky’s report of 8/23/05. The
applicant has no objection to any of the suggestions or conditions in the
report.
Mr. Bodolsky said his
recommendation is that the Board may want to limit the normal working hours
considering high traffic volume on Mt. Arlington Boulevard. Also, the
applicant has not indicated the out-of-town site.
Mr. Germinario said there was a
truck route plan attached to the application. It shows the route to be Mt.
Arlington Blvd. to Shippenport Rd. to Landing Rd. to Route 80.
Discussion.
Mr. Rilee said he does not object
to the route of travel, but agrees with limiting the hours of operation.
Mr. Platt said the applicant
would agree to work hours from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., no weekends.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the application. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes.
S-25-05 – ATKINS – FINAL
SITE PLAN FOR RETAIL STORES LOCATED ON HOWARD BLVD. BLOCK 12201, LOT 1.0103 IN
OB ZONE
Attorney John Wyciskala represented
the applicant. He said this application is for phase 2 of the Roxbury Commons
complex on the east side of Howard Boulevard. Preliminary approvals for a
hotel, restaurant and retail complex were granted in 1998 and memorialized in
January 1999. Phase 1 consisted of construction of Cracker Barrel and Holiday
Inn Express. Phase 2 consisted of the development of the approximately 23,200
sq. ft. retail portion of the site. Phase 2 is now almost complete. We are
here for final site plan approval. The application has been reviewed by the
staff. A waiver was granted for the submission of site elevations, and those
elevations have now been provided to Mr. Bodolsky and will be added to the
plans. There was also a question as to whether a conservation easement had
been recorded for the Open Space area around the perimeter of the property.
That easement was recorded with the County in 2000, and we have provided
copies.
Mr. Wyciskala provided the Board
with copies of Mr. Bodolsky’s report of 9/6/05.
Stan Omland, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in. He referred to exhibit A-5 dated 8/26/98. We are
here for Phase 2.
Mr. Omland addressed Mr.
Bodolsky’s report dated 9/6/05:
Item 1 – conservation easement
supplied
Item 2 – will provide lath at each
monument
Item 3 – Wallpack lights are at
the rear of the retail building at each door to provide security and
illumination for the exit for the employees. They are not visible to the
public. We would ask that the Board consider them as they are, with one
modification. We have provided a shield to tilt one light farther down.
Discussion. Mr. Zoschak had no
objection to the lights.
Mr. Stern made a recommendation
to modify the hoods on all the lights at the rear of the building. It will
require a design waiver.
The applicant agreed. A voice
vote of the Board agreed.
Item 4 –Mr. Omland proposed to
tilt the three lights along the back wall. They provide additional security
lighting. They can be seen from the hotel.
Discussion. It was determined
those lights will be eliminated.
Item 5 – will comply
Item 6 – Mr. Omland stated the
dumpster is located on a different block and lot that is owned by the hotel.
It is not a common element controlled by the condominium association.
Mr. Stern said that dumpster has
been an ongoing problem.
Robert Atkins was sworn in. He
stated the issue is that I don’t have the authority to force the hotel owner to
do anything. If this were in the common elements, we may be able to take care
of it.
Mr. Stern said there is an
indication for a future dumpster enclosure on the plans. If this is not under
Mr. Atkins’s control, it may have to be referred to the Zoning Officer who
would notify the hotel of the need for the enclosure.
Mr. Bodolsky asked what the
common elements are.
Mr. Omland said the common
elements are the driveway and the open space and the detention basin.
Everything else is in individual lots for the Cracker Barrel, the hotel, and
the retail.
Mr. Germinario said enforcement
action would have to be against the hotel lot.
Item 7 – agreed
Item 8 – Plans depict single
striping, but what is done in the field is hairpin.
Mr. Omland said regarding the
conditions from the resolution, we will comply with all the conditions that
have not already been complied with. All items agreed to in Mr. Bodolsky’s
report will be done prior to C.O.
Mr. Omland addressed Mr. Stern’s
report of 9/6/05:
Item 1.1 – agreed
Item 1.2 – Discussion. Edging
with black steel garden edging as proposed by applicant will be done. Edging
to be approved by Mr. Stern prior to installation.
Mr. Atkins stated the edging is
just arriving from the supplier, and we are hopeful it will be in before C.O.
It was determined, as there are
already 3 tenants committed to, the edging will be installed as a condition of
the 4th C.O.
Items 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 – agreed
Item 1.8 – addressed
Item 1.9, 1.10, 1.11 – agreed
Item 1.12 – addressed
Applicant will comply with all
landscaping comments and all prior resolution conditions prior to C.O.
Mr. Bodolsky requested an AutoCad
file on the coordinates. The applicant agreed.
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the application subject to all comments and conditions stated, and that
the edging will be installed within 3 months; approval effective on adoption.
Mr. Bautz seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr.
Behrens, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes.
M-30-04 – MARK TUCCI (DE
ROCK) – MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR TWO LOTS LOCATED ON SECOND ST. BLOCK 2611, LOT 12
IN R-4 ZONE
Attorney Michael Shivietz
represented the applicant. He stated this application is for a two-lot
subdivision. Hearings began in the Spring of 2004. During the course of the
hearings, the applicant’s engineers have sought to address the issues raised.
At the last hearing some of the Board members suggested the Township Engineer
and Township Attorney give their input. That has been done. There also was an
issue regarding the area of the drainage basin. Since the last hearing I, Mr.
Spillane, Mr. Kobylarz and Mr. Bodolsky have met, and Mr. Spillane will discuss
that with the Board. There was also an issue regarding the need for perk
tests. That was also done. Mr. Spillane has prepared a report responding to
Mr. Bodolsky’s 8/17/05 report.
Michael Spillane said we did a
soil log on 8/16/05. We excavated to 10 feet and there was some faint mottling
at 5 feet. Mr. Bodolsky mentioned that in his report and indicated there might
be hydraulically restrictive stratum based on textural classifications. I
don’t believe that the mottling was an indication of a high water table. It
was very faint, and in my opinion it was perched water at some time over the
years. The rest of the hole was dry. At the bottom of the hole was K4
material. Regardless of whether this is perched water or standing water, it is
5 feet down, which means there would be a 5 foot column of water on top of it.
Should it fill with water to the 5 foot level we would still have 5 feet of
freeboard, and the water would then disburse into the water table. There has
never been a problem with water dissipating into the soil. The capacity of the
system will hold a 100-year storm within the 3 basins on the lots. Mr.
Kobylarz has reviewed the drainage area with me and he increased it by about ½
acre. It is my opinion the basins that were designed will function and will
provide adequate capacity to hold all the water form the neighborhood and they
will drain within 72 hours. The basins have outlets which are intended to take
care of any possibility of frost. My conclusion is that the drywells as
designed will function and the entire drainage area from the neighborhood will
be contained.
Mr. Bodolsky said my opinion is
that we should not be interjecting ourselves into the design of a system. My
responsibility was to observe the soil logs and not to furnish the applicant
with design information.
The applicant submitted the
permeability test results for samples 1A and 1B (marked A-4A), and test results
for samples 2A and 2B (marked A-4B).
Mr. Bodolsky said he agrees with
Mr. Spillane’s conclusion regarding permeability at the bottom of the 10 feet.
Mr. Germinario said regarding
Item 1 in Mr. Bodolsky’s report dated 5/18/05, we have worked out a drainage
easement. Mr. Shivietz did ask for a modification of the language. The Board
language would have indicated that the township would not cause a substantial
increase in the area of the drainage basin. The applicant would like to delete
the word substantial.
Discussion. Mr. Spillane said
you can’t increase the drainage area unless you piped water from somewhere
else.
Mr. Rilee said he has some
concerns. Mr. Zoschak said he would like to see a little more protective
language for the township.
Mr. Germinario said the draft
easement I submitted included the suggestions from both Mr. Bucco and Mr.
Kobylarz. The agreement is strictly geared toward the drainage basin.
Mr. Germinario read from the
draft easement:
The easement granted herein is limited to the right of
the Township to discharge runoff from Second Street onto Lots 12 and 12.01 in
Block 2611 which runoff accumulates on Second Street from the area currently
draining onto Second Street. Parties agree that for the purposes of this
easement the extent of the drainage basin as of
the date of this agreement is described in Exhibit A hereto.
Mr. Germinario showed the Board a
copy of Exhibit A.
Mr. Rilee said this agreement is
very vital as to whether we move forward with this application.
Mr. Shivietz suggested the Board
determine what language they would recommend, and it will be finalized at the
Council level.
Regarding Item 12 in Mr.
Bodolsky’s report, Mr. Zoschak recollected that the applicant’s engineer had
indicated there would be no public water going into the front yard pond.
Mr. Stern said this lacks some of
the characteristics of a detention/retention basin. The Board could view this
as a Flexible C variance where the benefits of granting it would outweigh the
detriments. The benefit would be the handling of the drainage problem in the
general area.
Mr. Germinario said the question
is whether or not you classify it as a detention basin. Assuming you do, I
would agree with Mr. Stern. Part of what is happening is that the applicant is
providing for stormwater facilities on their property that serves, in part, a
public road. That is a public benefit.
Ms. Voyce said the pond should be
recognized for what it is. It is a stormwater control feature. It just
doesn’t have outlets.
Mr. Bodolsky said these are
infiltrative basins. At the detention basin at the rear of the lot, there is a
slight grading problem that will be addressed. It should be noted that once
the grade lines are modified, theoretically there will be ponding on an
adjoining property but to less of an extent than there is now. I would
recommend these ponds be classified as infiltrative ponds, and therefore negate
the need for a variance.
Mr. Germinario agreed.
The Board members agreed.
Regarding Item 2 in Mr.
Bodolsky’s report, Mr. Spillane said the maintenance of the facilities will be
the responsibility of the homeowners.
Mr. Germinario said there will be
a drainage easement defining the outline of the pond. The easement as it now
stands imposes the obligation on this applicant and their successors in title
to maintain these basins.
It was agreed the basins will be
constructed before the deeds are filed, and the Board agrees that the time for
filing of the deeds will be extended 190 days.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Stern’s report dated 2/26/04:
Item 1 – addressed
Items 2 – addressed
Item 3 – rolled asphalt is
acceptable
Item 4 – applicant will put in
street trees – waiver not required
Item 5 through 12 –agreed
Mr. Stern added that the resolution
should note that the grading of the infiltration basins cannot be modified; the
deed will reference the resolution; a tree removal permit is required.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Gary Simons stepped forward. He
said he is concerned about flooding. I didn’t hear any guarantee the water
won’t go onto my property and if the homeowners don’t maintain the basins, who
will guarantee there will be no damage.
Mr. Simons asked if single family
houses are allowed to be changed to boarding houses. One of those houses is
being used as a boarding house.
Mr. Germinario said the area is
zoned for single family homes.
Mr. Zoschak said if there is a
boarding house, it should be reported to the township.
Ms. Voyce said she is not sure
what the limitation is.
Mr. Stern said if the home has
been broken up into separate living areas, it is not permitted.
Mr. Simons said that is just one
more thing to consider.
Mr. Zoschak said there was
testimony that no more water will go onto anyone else’s property.
Mr. Rilee said if there is
flooding and Mr. Simons calls the Township, they will notify the homeowner. If
it is not done, the Township will go out and take care of it.
Mr. Simons said the Township
doesn’t respond that quickly.
Mr. Simons said another issue is
that the water has been running down my driveway. I don’t want that. It has
been undermining some of the pillars in my foundation. When will that stop?
If I change the flow on my property, where will the water go?
Mr. Germinario said there will be
an easement that will allow us to discharge water from the public street into
that property. It just says we don’t change the area that drains into the
basin. It doesn’t say anything about not increasing or changing the water
flow.
Mr. Rilee said Mr. Simons or any
other homeowner can alter the water flow, but we can’t hold an individual
homeowner responsible for whatever happens with other people. They are already
accepting the water and have agreed to accept the water. By you deferring
yours away, it would make it easier for this home to be built.
Mr. Simons said we need storm
sewers in this area.
Mr. Rilee said that is to be
determined at a different venue.
Mr. Spillane explained how the
basins will work. He said they are designed to take the water from the area.
However it gets there doesn’t matter to the basin. If the water now comes from
First Avenue, goes through Mr. Simons’ driveway, and into this lot, and you now
want to block that water, it will go down Second Street and will go into our
lot through the swale between the two lots. For the last 100 years, that same
amount of water has been going through this neighborhood. We are putting in 9
more drywells that will contain more water than has ever been contained there.
The basins were designed for a more than a 100-year storm.
Mr. Simons said he would like a
guarantee.
Mr. Zoschak said if it happens
today, it will happen less than it does now.
Ms. Voyce said the Board has been
working on this issue since the application first came to the Board. We are
trying to get the best resolution to this that we can for you and the
neighbors. As far as storm sewers, that is only addressed at the Township
Council.
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the application subject to the filing of a drainage easement that would
be agreed upon between the applicant and the Township. The Board will suggest
the wording of the easement. And subject to all other conditions agreed upon
in the course of the hearings and that are summarized in the 3 reports of the
professionals, and design waivers and variances. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Discussion.
Mr. Rilee said this is not an
easy application. There are many extenuating circumstances. I see this as a
potential problem one way or another. This started as a 3- lot subdivision.
Based on all that I have heard, I will be voting for this, but I am not happy
about the agreement, but I think it’s the only thing we can do to protect the
people in the neighborhood until such time as there is a larger plan for the
area in reference to storm sewers.
Ms. Voyce agreed.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes;
Ms. Voyce, yes.
There was a 5 minute recess.
S-4-05 – VILLAGES –
SUBDIVISION FOR 186 LOTS LOCATED ON SHIPPENPORT RD. BLOCK 11201, LOTS 1, 2, 3
IN R-5 ZONE
Attorney Stephen Tripp
represented the applicant. He explained to the Board that they are still
working on the Shippenport Road plans and hope to have them in soon for Mr.
Kobylarz to review. We have also met several times with the staff to go over
the reports and we have 3 items that must be discussed with the Board for
determination. They involve Basin G and Road Q on Lot 135 or 138; Basin F on
Lot 100; and pump station 2.
Mr. Rilee asked if the changes
were because of the DEP.
Mr. Tripp said yes, but the
professional staff thinks we should lose some lots because they cannot be
serviced. The first item refers to Basin G on Road Q, and is on page 8 of Mr.
Bodolsky’s report, referring to Sheet 22. In Mr. Stern’s report it is on page
12.
Susan Berninger was present and
referred to Exhibit A-3. She showed where Road Q is located. There is a 200
foot wetlands buffer imposed just below Road Q. We have a DEP permit to buffer
average here. The house, as shown, in a wetland transition area has been
approved by DEP. The outfalls associated by Basin G have been approved. The
two lots questions in the reports are lot 135 and Lot 138. We did lose a lot
on this road because of the redesign, but the staff still has concerns.
Ms. Berninger referred to an
exhibit, 1999 Detention Basin G Grading Plan (marked A-6). The lot arrangement
was different then, but the two lots at the end of the cul-de-sac area shown,
as well as Detention Basin G. In the original plan, neither of the lots had
usable rear yard. We had proposed the deck and we had a double-tiered
retaining wall on the lots, and a drop into the detention basin. The overall
drop from the back of the homes was about 57 feet. It is now 52 feet. The
current plan, Landscaped Detention Basin Plan (marked A-7), shows the two lots,
and behind the house in green is the transition area to remain. The side yard
is adjacent to Detention Basin G which has been moved and reconfigured. For
Lot 138 we now meet usable rearyard, and have removed all retaining walls. We
still have the drop from both homes. One of the concerns was the drop into the
basins. We propose landscaping along the property line of Lot 138 and along
the side line of Lot 135. We were also proposing to add a fence in front of
the landscaped row.
Ms. Berninger said there was a
comment in Mr. Bodolsky’s report of what would happen if you move the basin up
the slope a bit.
Ms. Berninger referred to the
Alternate Grading Plan (marked A-8). She stated we looked at that, but we
would create a 40’ high embankment, that would be a Class 3 dam and would
require a dam permit from DEP and would require additional responsibility for whoever
maintains the basin.
Mr. Tripp said the issue of the
serviceability of the lots in this vicinity was debated at the prior approval.
Mr. Zoschak said one of the decks
was eliminated.
Ms. Berninger said that is
correct. A lot was also eliminated, and the walls were eliminated.
Mr. Bodolsky said what is not
clear on Exhibit A-7 is the extent of clearing that is now affiliated with the
proposed option. Attachment 22.1 in my report shows the basin as approved vs.
the current proposal. The amount of clearing was also of concern. The
disturbance has been expanded by about 32,000 square feet. Because of that,
the grading and disturbance is linking with a power easement which is already
clear. They propose to re-vegetate it, but that is still a concern. I also
think the serviceability of the lots should be revisited by the Board.
Mr. Berninger said it is correct
the disturbance in this particular area has increased, but the overall
disturbance on the project has decreased.
Mr. Stern said there was a
significant increase of disturbance with the clearing of existing vegetation.
On the Road Q cul-de-sac you now have a full clearing going from the cul-de-sac
at Lot 138 all the way to the GPU overhead utility lines, and then there is a
very small sliver of vegetation before the next area of housing. This is shown
on Attachment 22.1 in Mr. Bodolsky’s report.
Ms. Berninger showed the area in
question on Exhibit A-2.
Ms. Voyce said she would like to
hear a discussion on the safety concerns with the dam, and also on the quality
of plant material that is being removed.
Ms. DeVincentis asked Ms.
Berninger why she feels this is the best design.
Ms. Berninger said we are trying
to avoid a Class 3 dam on the alternate design and a 40 foot high embankment we
would have to build. The overall clearing on the site has been reduced, and we
felt a little more clearing here was not a problem. A Class 3 dam has a higher
hazard potential because of the height of the embankment and if the embankment
were to ever breach. The design criteria, maintenance responsibilities,
reporting responsibilities, etc. are all more stringent on a Class 3 dam. You
also have to look at where it would go if it does breach, and the potential for
downstream damage. A Class 4 dam is not considered high hazard unless there is
a house downstream right there.
Ms. DeVincentis asked how not
putting the two lots in helps that.
Mr. Bodolsky said Exhibit A-8
shows a drop from the back of the lot to the pond of 20 feet. The bottom of
these ponds won’t necessarily be dry, but it is a safety consideration. A
concern is a child going after a ball into a hole that is 50 feet deep. They
do propose a fence.
Ms. Berninger said the proposed
plan shows a fence on the lots, as well as on the basin.
Mr. Bodolsky asked what the
actual fill is at the berm.
Ms. Berninger said at the berm it
is 26 feet.
Mr. Stern said this would be
maintained by the homeowners association, but there is the possibility it would
revert over the to the township.
Mr. Rilee said he prefers not to
have the dam. Mr. Zoschak agreed.
It was determined the applicant
will identify the quality of plant material in the area. A determination will
be made by Mr. Stern and the applicant. If an agreement can’t be reached, the
matter will come back to the Board.
Ms.Voyce suggested the applicant
also consider a fence at the cul-de-sac at the entrance to the access drive.
There was discussion on the pumps
station lot.
Ms. Berninger handed out copies
of a comparison of the pump station and lot adjacent to it on the approved plan
vs. what is now proposed (marked A-9). The pump station is located at Road F,
and the lot adjacent to it is Lot 167, originally shown as Lot 165. We have
been detailing and designing the pump station, and it has evolved into the
current proposal, as per recommendations from DPW and Mike Kobylarz. On the
current plan we shifted the house on Lot 167 further away. Mr. Stern also
suggested flipping the house to have the garage on the side of the pump house.
That could be done. The generator building will be a block building with
siding to mitigate noise, and there are sound attenuation devices that can be
put on the louvers. The professionals have concern that the house is too close
to the pump station. The house would be about 30 feet from the property line.
A single row of evergreens is shown along the line. That could be doubled.
Mr. Tripp said the location of
the pump station and the proximity to the home is what was originally approved.
Mr. Bodolsky said this is the
first time we are seeing details on the pump station.
After discussion it was
determined the applicant will return to the Board with proposals to mitigate
noise and odor impacts with the current proposal, and the Board will re-visit
the matter at the next hearing.
The applicant was carried to
10/19/05. The applicant granted an extension of time to 12/31/05.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 11:00 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary
lm/