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 with Chairman Scott Meyer presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman read the “Open Public Meetings Act”. 


BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Scott Meyer, Larry Sweeney, Gary Behrens, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Joseph Schwab, Teresa DeVincentis, Jim Rilee, Lisa Voyce, Charles Bautz.


ABSENT:  Steven Alford


PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Tom Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.


Minutes of 10/19/05


Mr. Zoschak made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Rilee seconded.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, abstain; Mr. Bautz, abstain; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Meyer, abstain.





Mark East, Inc. – Walgreens


Mr. Stern said this is an application for a 14,696 square foot pharmacy store, and they would have one access through the McDonald’s property.  They have submitted all information to be deemed complete.  No waivers are requested.


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. Voyce, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.


The application is scheduled for 1/18/06.


Scott Meyer congratulated Mr. Rilee on his re-election to the Council.






Mr. Stern stated we were before the Board on October 5th to discuss the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan.  The township is obligated to submit the plan to the Council on Affordable Housing by December 20th.  Since that hearing, we have fine-tuned the document and are here with the final draft.


Chuck McGroarty said in summary, Roxbury has a surplus of 233 units and credits.  The number has fluctuated slightly, but the most substantial change since the last review was that we learned that we will not get a rental bonus credit for group homes.  Apart from that, the findings from before still hold.  The total third round goal is 245 units, before applying the credits.  The prior round obligation was 161.  The rehabilitation requirement is 9 units, and Roxbury had a vigorous program of rehabilitation with the County program.  Unfortunately, any of those that pre-date 4/1/00 do not count.  Roxbury has well over the 9 units required, so that component is satisfied in the third round.  The third part of the third round obligation is the growth share number.  You were assigned a number of 66.  That was derived from projections of new households and new jobs that would be created.  After a study of development activity, we found it was prudent to come up with a growth share number of 75 units.  In total there are 245 units. All the units we have counted toward the prior obligation of 161 have already been certified by COAH in the prior round plan.  We determined Roxbury has, coming into the third round, a total of 308 units.  We take away the 75 units, and that leaves a balance of 233.


The key points are that the bonus credits will not be counted for group homes.  We have identified there is a third round rental obligation and that is taken care of by existing units.  Lastly, there is a cap on the number of age restricted units (37) that can be counted for credit.  Any that exceed that number would carry forward to future rounds.  Part of the process involves a Fair Share Plan, and that is how you will achieve your objectives.  You have a substantial amount of money in the trust fund to date. You are entitled to fund up to 37 units in a RCA program.  At $35,000 per unit, the total outlay would be almost 1.3 million dollars.  We have identified that you can not only fund all the units and have money left over, but the best course of action would be to spend the money on activities that will generate additional credits and then add to your surplus and reduce the balance to a point where you will be obligated to spend 30% of the balance on affordable housing activities. 


Mr. Zoschak said we just had a communication from DCA about spending the money.  They seem to be anxious to have it spent.


Mr. McGroarty said our intention is that we will submit a spending plan to them.  There is no deadline on spending it.  The Housing Element and Fair Share Plan must be submitted by 12/10/05, and we intend to submit the spending plan at the same time. 


Mr. Rilee said monies that don’t get spent get taken away and we don’t get any credit.


Mr. McGroarty said there is an administrative fee which you are permitted to collect for time spent by your Planner and staff, and us as well.  That will also come out of the Housing Trust Fund.  Our intention is to finalize the projections, and we intend to submit the plan at the same time.


Mr. Stern said the extra money is already coming in so we will have the ability to spend it on other projects that we may get credits for.


Mr. McGroarty said it is possible the plan could be sent back for further information, but we are confident this is a valid and comprehensive plan.  I had heard there is a rule change in the works, and if that takes place, I expect COAH will be sending plans back to municipalities.


Mr. Stern said at a seminar he attended, they mentioned the issue of excess senior housing units.  As we are involved with the Muscarelle project, and we are going with the senior housing component, those units exceed our cap and won’t be counted in this round.  An issue has always been whether or not we would be obligated to growth share for those Muscarelle units.   It is questionable. 


Mr. McGroarty said in the worse case scenario it might be 18 to 20 credits reduced.   The Muscarelle market units should not count towards your growth share obligation.  If the growth share number goes up because of Muscarelle, the RCA credits will go up as well.  Tonight, we feel it is appropriate to proceed and to leave them in the plan.


Mr. Germinario stated he agrees there is no legal impediment to submit the plan as it is and wait for COAH to take a position on it.


Mr. Zoschak said the resolution references the current Master Plan.  Shouldn’t it mention the Re-examination Report?


Mr. Germinario said that can be added, but the resolution before the Board is legally sufficient.




No one stepped forward.




                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                                           RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE




WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury, State of New Jersey, adopted its current Master Plan pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-28 on August 15, 2000; and


WHEREAS, the Master Plan includes a Housing Element pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-28b(3); and


WHEREAS, N.J.A.C. 5:94-2.2(a) requires the adoption of the Housing Element by the Planning Board and endorsement by the Governing Body; and


WHEREAS, N.J.A.C. 5:94-4.1(a) requires the preparation of a Fair Share Plan in accordance with the Housing Element of the Master Plan; and


WHEREAS, N.J.A.C. 5:94-4.1(b) requires the adoption of the Fair Share Plan by the Planning Board and endorsement by the Governing Body; and


WHEREAS, upon notice duly provided pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-13, the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury held a public hearing on the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan on November 9, 2005; and


WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Township’s 2000 Master Plan and that adoption and implementation of the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan are in the public interest and protect public health and safety and promote the general welfare.


NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury, County of Morris, State of New Jersey, that the Planning Board hereby adopts the November 9, 2005 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan.


Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Zoschak seconded.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, abstain; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, abstain; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.




Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant.  He said this application is for a 22,498 square foot parcel between Main Street and Washington Street.  Main Street has an existing dwelling, and we propose to subdivide with a new lot fronting on Washington Street.  The parcels will comply with all the zoning requirements of the R-4 zone.  


Mr. Kron said there is a report from Mr. Kobylarz regarding the road.  The report states it is a 24 foot wide road and narrows to 15 feet near the property.  It is currently serviced by the township, and there is a secondary access road going to Main Street. There are also some wetlands near the road.  Mr. Kobylarz concludes this portion of Washington Street currently serves one dwelling and there is no ability to create additional lots except for proposed Lot 3.01.  He recommended that the roadway width and configuration remain as it currently exists, but a variance for frontage on an unimproved street would be necessary.


Mr. Kron stated there is also a letter from Mike Pellek, Fire Official and he states he finds the plans are acceptable to his office.  Statute 40:55d 36 and 37 allows the Board to grant a variance from a house being on an unimproved street if we can provide there is emergency access.  That is the case here, and we ask that the Board grant a variance from us having to do any improvement to the road.


Mr. Germinario said Mr. Bodolsky’s report indicates you don’t meet the offset to the rear setback line.


Mr. Kron said we think we do, and there will be testimony.


Ms. Voyce said on the zoning requirements on the map it states 23.9 existing remainder, which is less than the 30 feet.


Mr. Kron stated that is a pre-existing variance for the existing house.  It doesn’t relate to the new lot that will be created.


Michael DiDomenico was sworn in.  He stated he lives in Mine Hill, and the applicant is his aunt.  He will be building a house on the proposed lot for his personal use.  When he lived in Roxbury he was on the Board of Adjustment.  He is currently an electrician.  


William Chapin, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background for the Board and was accepted as a professional engineer. 


Mr. Chapin referred to a rendered subdivision plan (marked A-1).  He said the proposal is to subdivide the property.  We have application before DEP for transition area waivers and GP2 and GP10 permits.  We have moved the house toward the rear.  We are still waiting for our final approval from them.   We now have a turnaround as DEP doesn’t want parking in the transition area.  There is a seepage pit in the rear of the property and plantings required by DEP.  Regarding Washington Street, I don’t believe there need to be improvements to the road, as per the recommendations from the Township Engineer.  We feel the street is adequate to handle the amount of traffic a house like this would generate.  There is a secondary access.  My understanding is that the township plows across the front of the property


Mr. Chapin addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report dated 10/27/05:


He stated an ambulance would drive up Washington Street and could turn directly into the driveway.  Currently emergency vehicles use Washington Street for access to the existing house.  That is also true of a fire truck.  There is no issue about that.


Item 3 – agree curbs and sidewalks are not warranted – requires the RSIS waiver


Item 4 – (new 4A) – action to be conditioned on DEP approval


Mr. Bodolsky asked if this plan is what DEP will see.


Mr. Chapin said the plan submitted to DEP was slightly different from this one.  The location of the house and planning aspects are the same.


Mr. Zoschak asked if that road ends up in Lake Musconetcong.


Mr. Chapin said the right-of-way does.  There is not a public street to Main Street.  There is a drive connecting to the sanitary sewer for emergency access.


Mr. Germinario said we are approving a minor subdivision, not a site plan. Mr. Bodolsky proposes that the NJDEP approval would have to be for this identical proposal for the location of the house.


Mr. Kron said we agree to that.  If the location of the house changes, we would have to come back to the Board.


Mr. Bodolsky said there are also questions about the underground utilities.  You would be going through transition areas with underground utilities.  A GP10 doesn’t cover that.


Mr. Bodolsky asked about averaging in order to accommodate a house.  Are they ok with that?


Mr. Chapin said we now only have a small area on the side and nothing behind the house as far as any transition area. 


Mr. Bodolsky said there appear to be a number of questionable elements.  Rather than us deciding that, let DEP decide it. 


The applicant agreed.


Mr. Bodolsky stated his experience with transition averaging is that when you average and give back there is a compensation area.


Mr. Chapin showed it on the map.


Mr. Bodolsky said he believes DEP requires deed restrictions.  Is that practical here?


Mr. Chapin said he is aware of the deed restrictions.  We have been told that some kind of a fence would be acceptable so that the area would pretty much stay natural.  That fence would be about 6” off the edge of the driveway, and about 10 feet from the house.


Mr. Bautz asked what is there now.


Mr. DiDomenico said it is a vacant lot and it is maintained.


Mr. Bodolsky said when this is developed, DEP would impose a deed restriction on the remaining transition area.


Mr. Kron said we have agreed any approval would be subject to DEP restrictions.  If it is determined it is unusable, he won’t build the house. 


Mr. Meyer suggested the applicant continue to address the other comments in the professional reports, and we will return to this issue.


Item 6 – agree

Item 7 – done

Item 8 – Applicant is not asking for any C variances that relate to the size of the lot.  The only variance we are asking for is for building on the unimproved street.  We don’t believe the Board has any jurisdiction in terms of the size of the house.  This will be a 2,200 square foot house. 


Mr. Stern said there is a requirement for an 8-foot setback from the rearyard setback line to allow for a deck.


Item 10 -  Mr. Chapin said as a result of moving the house back to get it out of the transition area as much as possible, we did not propose a deck.   Originally we had a deck proposed, and we have now changed it to a patio at grade.


Mr. Stern said the ordinance says you have to have the room in order to allow for a future deck.


Ms. Voyce asked, if we grant this, are we aggravating a pre-existing nonconforming condition? 


Mr. Germinario said the nonconforming condition is on the lot with frontage on the other road.  It doesn’t help that nonconformity to have this unused space to the rear.  I don’t think the fact of the variance for not abutting on an improved street goes to the issue of the size of the house, but I agree that if we have the variance for the lack of 8 foot offset to the rear property line, it does bring the size of the house into the picture.


Mr. Kron asked if the Board would condition an approval on the applicant not being permitted to come back for a deck?


Mr. Meyer said the ordinance was written because of Poet’s Peak where people wanted to put a deck on. 


Mr. Germinario said we cannot bind future Boards to not consider a variance application.  This ordinance was intended to apply to this very situation.


It was determined the Board will return to this question.


Item 9A – Mr. Chapin said there are seepage pits that are about 12 feet from the foundation and have graded for that.

Item 10 - addressed

Item 11 – Mr. Chapin said the utilities are subject to a GP2 permit that allows utilities to be placed between the house and the street.


Mr. Bodolsky said he does not believe it applies to crossing transition areas.


Mr. Chapin said at this point, it appears they are applying it right.


Item 12 – Mr. Chapin said the Township Engineer has said they are taking care of things.  The DEP has allowances for linear development in public streets.  That area is in a public street so it is not a problem.


Item 13 – Mr. Chapin stated the plan has gone to DEP with the well as shown, and we have not had any comment back that it would have to be moved.  If it is required, we can do it.  Our plan is to tie into public water at some point. The plan also shows a well.


Ms. Voyce said you would end up taking Musconetcong water probably.  If you are going to have setbacks to that if you have seepage pits.  I am not sure there is enough room.


Mr. Chapin said we need 50 feet, and we have it.


Ms. Voyce asked about from other structures in the area.


Mr. Chapin said we are fine with that also.


Ms. Voyce said she is concerned not enough is known yet to even know if you can have a workable well on the site.  The potential homeowner should be aware of that. 


Mr. Chapin said they have casing that takes care of things like that.


Ms. Voyce said she understands that and she also understands the location and that there are things going on that you need to be concerned about.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if the applicant has laid templates to indicate fire trucks can turn around?


Mr. Meyer said it is stated in Mr. Pellek’s letter that there was no problem.


Mr. Chapin said he has not placed a template on the plan.  A fire truck would be able to turn around here as well as at any other house on the street. 


Mr. Bodolsky suggested that the applicant prepare an exhibit showing how a fire truck will turn around.


Mr. Zoschak asked what the condition of the emergency road is.


Mr. Kron said the Township Engineer was satisfied it would be an alternate access.   I also believe the fire official was satisfied.


Mr. Bodolsky said he thinks it is a dirt road.


The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report:


Item 1 – addressed

Item 2 – addressed

Item 3 – Mr. Chapin stated the roof of the house is done with drywells.  We can’t place drywells in the transition area, so we are calling out for the use of porous pavement with a series of stone beds beneath the driveway.  There would have to be a deed restriction against sealing the driveway.


Ms. Voyce asked about the other water that will be on the site.  It will sheetflow from the lawn into the wetlands into the stream into the lake.


Mr. Chapin said yes, that is what it does now.


Item 4 – to be addressed

Item 5  - agreed

Item 6 – to be addressed


Mr. Germinario said the Board can look for other information that goes into the visual impact of the development.  I believe it would help you if you have architecturals, to share them with the Board.


Item 7 – not applicable

Item 8 – to be further addressed

Item 9 – agreed

Item 10 – agreed

Item 11 – agreed

Item 12 – agreed

Item 13 – agreed


Mr. Stern stated we would like to see the sizes of the plants and they should be specified.


Mr. Rilee asked how you would supply a street tree on Washington Avenue. 


Mr. Stern said the street trees would go along the roadway.


Mr. Chapin said within the transition area.


Items 14 to 18 – agreed


The application was carried to 1/4/06.  The applicant agreed to an extension through 1/31/06.




No one stepped forward.




There was a 5 minute recess at 9:00 p.m.




Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant.  He stated this is a one-story warehouse building on Rt. 46 and Berkshire Valley Road.  It is in a state of disrepair.  We propose to convert it to medical offices.  Two-thirds of the offices would be used as a dialysis center that is currently being operated at St. Clair’s Hospital.


Richard Knudsen, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.


Ken Nelson, area manager for Fresenius, was sworn in.


Rosalita Mokhtar, architect for the applicant was sworn in.


Edward McGinley, project manager for Fresenius, was sworn in.


Mr. Knudsen gave his educational and professional background and was accepted by the Board as a professional engineer.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if Mr. Knudsen is a traffic engineer.


Mr. Knudsen said he is not.  


Mr. Knudsen referred to a colored rendering of the first sheet of the site plan (marked A-1) and gave an overview of the project, stating the site is on the corner of Rt. 46 and Berkshire Valley Road.  It is a corner lot and is about 1.7 acres.  There is an existing building and some impervious area on the north and east sides of the building.  There are existing depressed curbs on Berkshire Valley Rd.  We are proposing a renovation of the existing building.  A new parking lot would be constructed and the existing curb cuts would be improved.  There would be 58 parking spaces to the north of the building, a driveway off Berkshire Valley Road for ingress and egress.  There would be a single ingress driveway off Route 46.  All traffic would exit onto Berkshire Valley Road.  We propose landscaping as shown on the plan, and there would be additional landscaping.


Mr. Knudsen addressed a report from Mr. Bodolsky:


Item 1 – agreed

Item 2 – agreed – and agree to easement for placement of the sidewalks

Item 3 – agreed

Item 4 – agreed – there will still be 58 spaces with 6 handicap spaces along the frontage. 

Item 5 – to be addressed

Item 6 – agreed – Mr. Knudsen said the project proposes an underground infiltration system. There are also comments on how to handle the roof runoff.  Roof runoff would go directly to the infiltration pit.  Runoff from the parking lot would go to an oil separator and grit chamber.  O & M manual will be submitted for Mr. Bodolsky’s review

Item 7 – agreed

Item 8 – agreed

Item 9 – addressed

Item 10 - agreed

Item 11 – to be reviewed and approved by Mr. Bodolsky


Mr. Bodolsky cautioned that a half-footcandle illumination average is low. 


Mr. Knudsen stated a half-footcandle illumination means many areas of the parking lot are very dim.  That is not sufficient for a parking area where there may be people who are at a medical facility.  A higher footcandle of about 2 footcandles would be preferable.  That could be achieved so that the higher illumination levels would be within the site and at the walkways and not affect the neighboring properties.  We feel 2 footcandles is a reasonable number. 




Mr. Bodolsky asked what the latest time the facility would be operating.


Mr. Nelson stepped forward and said the hours of operation are 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.    There are no narcotics on site.


The Board agreed the average illumination won’t be more than 2 footcandles, to be worked out with Mr. Bodolsky, and overflow will be mitigated as much as possible.


Mr. Stern said a design waiver will be required for slight overflow along Lot 17. 

The Board agreed to the design waiver.


Items 12, 13, 14 - agree


Ms. Voyce asked if the soil application will be major or minor.


Mr. Knudsen said we don’t expect there to be a lot.  I doubt there will be more than 1,000 c.y.


In answer to questions from Mr. Kron, Ken Nelson stated he said he has been a nurse since 1995 and has been a manager and currently manages 3 clinics in Morris County and one in Hudson County.  Currently we are looking to relocate a clinic that has 90 patients.  They come for dialysis generally 3 times a week.  They come for about 3 to 4 hours, and there are 3 shifts a day.  At no time will there be more than 20 patients receiving treatment at once.  Regarding the parking, generally we discourage the patients from driving.  We do have some younger patients who drive.  On the Monday, Wednesday, Friday patients, only 12 of those drive now. There are 3 to 4 per shift who drive themselves.  The others are dropped off by family or van service.    We are required to have 7 caregivers treating 20 patients.  We also have 7 support personnel and myself.  In the worst case scenario. you would look at less than 20 on a given shift.


Mr. Zoshcak asked who does the ambulatory transport from the nursing homes.


Mr. Nelson said the nursing home does. 


Mr. Rilee asked how many square feet of the building will be for this use.


Ms. Mahktar said about 11,000 square feet.  The other part is about 4,000 square feet.  That 4,000 square feet has no tenant yet.  We assume it would be a medical office.  The required number of parking spaces would be 56 parking spaces, which is consistent with what is provided.


Mr. Nelson said we do draw labs on a weekly basis. Blood vials are stored according to regulations in a plastic bag which is sealed, and those are picked up via carrier.  Almost all the labs are kept in a refrigerator.  We would agree to store the labs for pickup indoors.


Regarding the method of handing hazardous waste material, Mr. Nelson said we do not generate hazardous waste.  We do generate medical waste that is stored indoors, in plastic and stored in a room to be picked up.  The trash going to the trash enclosure area is solid waste, not regulated medical waste.  Deliveries are once a week on  a straight truck.  The  pallets are brought into the building.  We do get some smaller deliveries, but that is typically done in a small shopping bag.  We are also a supplier of the equipment we use.  All that activity occurs to the side of the building. 


Mr. Kron asked Mr. Knudsen if he feels adequate parking is provided.


Mr. Knudsen said yes, based on the number of spaces needed for the staff and patients and means of deliveries, and the Township requirements for the tenant medical space. 


Mr. Bodolsky said now that you are increasing the handicap stalls to 6, once the second space is rented out, where will there be an area for drop-off?


Mr. Knudsen said patients would be dropped off at the main entrance, and with the 56 handicap spaces the island is just shrunk by a small amount.  That would meet the ADA requirements for a drop-off area.


Ms. Mahtka was sworn in and gave her educational and professional background and was qualified as a licensed architecture. 


Ms. Mahtka referred to an exhibit showing the floor plan and 4 elevations of the building (marked A-2).  She stated we propose new finishes on all 4 sides of the building.  The main entrance for Fresenius is on the back, but we felt we had to be respectful of all sides of the building.   There are canopies over the entrances, decorative light fixtures.  The material we propose is stucco.  The canopy is corrugated metal which color will match the stucco.  We added a rather large cornice to accentuate the building.


Mr. Meyer asked if Mr. Stern is satisfied with the architecture.


Mr. Stern said this is a rehab of an existing structure.  This is a significant upgrade.  I have recommend some further accents by the windows and service doors.


Ms. Mahtka said we tried a few things, and felt we want to keep the clean lines of the building. 


Mr. Zoschak said I think some of the landscaping will add to the ambiance of the building. 


Mr. Stern said there will be some foundation plantings added.  Also, part of the plan is evergreen and ornamental trees along Route 46.


Mr. Stern suggested there should be something done to improve the appearance of the  service doors.


Ms. Mahtka said the doors will have some accent to make it look more like a residential type door.  We prefer that they recede.


Mr. Stern asked if the accent lights that are proposed along the building elevations shine out.


Ms. Mahtka said they do shine out and are fluorescent.  The light will be cast down.  (as shown on Exhibit A-3 – arco 17” round and  A-4 – lumilyte.  We agree to work with Mr. Stern on the lighting.


Mr. Stern said the ordinance states the light lens has to be parallel to the ground and decorative lighting is permitted at the discretion of the Board. 


Mr. Rilee said he would like to see a photo sample of the light fixture (showing the fixtures in daytime and evening).


Mr. Meyer said this is an opportunity to get the best looking façade possible along Route 46.


The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report:


Item 1.6 – There is a variance required for impervious coverage.  Mr. Knudsen said because of the infiltration system, the fact we are over on the impervious coverage will not have a detriment to the community


Item 1.7 – dictated by County (existing condition)

Items 1.8 through 1.16 – agreed

1.17 – will comply with Fire Official’s requirement

1.18 – agree

1.19 – agree

1.20 – addressed

1.21 – agreed

2.1 – addressed

2.2 – Board had no objection to encroachment on corner of building

2.3 – Mr. Knudsen said a waiver is required near trash enclosure – screening is provided

2.4 – addressed

2.5, 2.6 – agreed

2.7 – addressed

2.8 – agreed – application agreed to prohibition of tractor trailers

2.9 – waiver requested

2.10 – agree

2.11 – agree to granite block curbing, but concrete at base of building

2.12 – request design waiver – will provide easements for the areas where the sidewalk is outside the public right-of-way


Mr. Kron asked if the Board would allow them to draw a building permit for interior work on the building due to the time constraints.


Mr. Germinario said it would involve granting them a partial site plan approval just pertaining to the building interior.




Mr. Stern stated this would be granting direction to the Building Official to accept the plans and start the review process.  No construction is to begin until site plan approval, and no demolition.


Mr. Sweeney made a motion to allow the Building Department to begin the review process.  Mr. Bautz seconded.


A voice vote approved, with Mr. Rilee opposed and Mr. Zoschak abstaining.


The application was carried to 12/7/06.


The applicant granted an extension until 12/31/05.




Richard Cramond was sworn in.  He said the Historic Advisory Committee is very concerned about the architectural treatment of the building.  I agree that more needs to be done, and we hope between now and the next meeting it can be made more pleasing and a more acceptable architectural presence.  I think existing buildings should have the most compatible treatment that would fit in and enhance the streetscape on Route 46.


The applicant agreed to contact Mr. Cramond.


The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:40 p.m.


                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary