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.


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.




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.






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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.





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.




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.





No one stepped forward.




The meeting was adjourned by motion at 11:00 p.m.


                                                                        Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary