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, Larry Sweeney, Jim Rilee, Charles Bautz, Gary Behrens, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Steven Alford, Lisa Voyce.  Joseph Schwab arrived at 9:15 p.m.

 

ABSENT:  Teresa DeVincentis

 

Minutes of 10/5/05

 

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

 

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

 

AGENDA

 

M-1-05 – VILLAGES – AMENDED SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON SHIPPENPORT RD. BLOCK 11201, LOTS 1, 2, 3 IN R-5 ZONE

 

Attorney Steven Tripp represented the applicant.  He said we have a meeting with the County on Monday to talk to them about Shippenport Road.  Regarding pump station 2, we are still working with Mr. Kobylarz and once he is satisfied with the redesign we will come back to discuss that.  Regarding water, the water supply is actually available now.  The issue is storage and to work out details.  We have been discussing things with the Council informally, and there should be an understanding shortly in terms of the construction and the scope of infrastructure.  That should be firmed up in about a month.  There was an issue regarding Basin F and whether the redesign complied with the conditions.  The basin had to be modified, and the question is whether it complies with Condition 100.  The professionals also raised issues about the serviceability of lots in the vicinity.  We will probably have one more staff meeting to work out details. 

 

Mr. Rilee asked if the professionals agree that these are the issues that need to be addressed.

 

Mr. Stern said that is correct.  We are almost at a point where the staff should get together and come up with certain conditions of approval.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said he agrees the tone of the staff meetings has improved dramatically.  The applicant has not demonstrated an unwillingness to respond to any of the questions.  There are items that are still open and need responses.

 

Mr. Tripp asked Ms. Berninger to address Basin F.

 

Ms. Berninger stated Basin F is located at the back of the site adjacent to Mt. Arlington Road.  Lot 183 is the lot affected. 

 

Mr. Rilee asked if that is the area that has been discussed as open space.

 

Ms. Berninger said no.

 

Ms. Berninger said Condition 100 says Basin F shall contain walls no taller than 13’ (overall) with a maximum of two tiers.   

 

Ms. Berninger handed out an exhibit (marked A-13 ) which was a chronological history of the Basin F design.  She said picture #1 was created in June of 2000.  At that time the detention basin had 3 terraces of walls along the back and there was a tot lot.  The wall height was at about 19 feet.  We decided to relocate the tot lot to the end of Villages Boulevard, and because two of the terraces equaled 13 feet of wall, we decided to do two terraces, 13 feet high, and take out the tot lot.  That is how we developed Condition 100.  When we submitted for resolution compliance in 2003, what we developed is shown on picture #2.  That had two terraces of walls 13 feet high, and Basin F got a little bigger.  We discussed it with Mr. Bodolsky, and talked about safety concerns and whether we should add safety shelves.  We then designed the basin in picture #3 which has three tiers of retaining walls along the upper side for about 140 feet.  The height of those walls is 13 feet.  In between each wall is a 4’ flat spot safety shelve in the basin, and at the bottom of the basin, we drop 5 feet into the bottom of the basin. The overall drop to the very bottom is 18 feet.  The walls themselves are a total of 13 feet in height.    We provided the safety shelves around the entire perimeter of the basin.  A question arose in Mr. Bodolsky’s report that we are violating Condition 100.  There were additional concerns by Mr. Stern that the basin should be redesigned to eliminate retaining walls which would require the elimination of one lot.  The only way you will eliminate walls in the basin is to lose a lot.  We prefer not to lose a lot.  I think by the addition of the safety shelves we have addressed the safety issue.  The basin is entirely fenced and there is maintenance access.  The wall themselves are 8 ½ to 10 feet high.  There is an additional drop to the bottom of the basin.  For the most part we do meet the 13 foot drop.

 

Mr. Zoschak asked if the applicant has a problem with Mr. Bodolsky’s requirements for guiderails and steps.

 

Ms. Berninger said we would agree to that.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said there is a scenario “zero” which was the basin as submitted in 1999, which was the crux of the initial comments.  The way this project was progressing, a lot of the issues were being addressed with exhibits.  Picture 1 on the exhibit A-13 was submitted to the Board and resulted in Condition 100.  What snapshot “zero” does is set a flavor for how the pond related to what was around it.  There was a flat spot next to Lot 183 in the original design.  What was envisioned was that the tot lot was going to be placed somewhere else, and the walls would be left as shown.  What has progressed is that the pond has moved and keeps on chewing into the area next to lot 183.  We now have walls on two sides of lot 183.  Also, the walls have crept closer to the sidewalk on Road T.  The overall drop has gone from 13 feet to 18 or 19 feet. 

 

Mr. Rilee asked what removing the lot would do.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the need for walls came about because as the calculations were developed, they needed more volume, and instead of sacrificing a lot they started putting in vertical walls.  You are picking up more volume by putting the walls in.  If you were to eliminate Lot 183 you would be able to slope back the curvilinear basin.  The proximity of the wall next to the intersection hasn’t changed.  However, that doesn’t mean they can’t bring it away by losing a lot.

 

Mr. Bautz asked how much higher the wall would be by the intersection.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said it has gotten higher by about 9 feet.

 

Ms. Berninger said that has been like that for some time. 

 

Mr. Meyer said if you lost a lot, other than moving it away from the roadway, would it change the height of the walls?

 

Ms. Berninger said we would still have two tiers of walls at 13 feet.  We might lose the third tier.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the bottom of the basin will stay at the same elevation.  It is a matter of whether you have three tiers of walls to get up to the road elevation or whether you have two tiers and an embankment.

 

Discussion.

 

Mr. Meyer said the sense of the Board would be for the applicant to design it both ways, and we would look at what would be gained.

 

Ms. Berninger agreed.

 

Mr. Rilee suggested they look at the safety shelves and possibly expand on them a bit. 

 

Mr. Stern said the landscape plan shows landscaping on each terrace. 

 

Mr. Bautz asked what type of landscaping would be on the tiers.

 

Mr. Stern said they would be landscaped heavily with weeping forsythia and are also using euonymus, burning bush, etc. to mitigate the large vertical expanse of retaining walls.  They would continue to flourish and flower.

 

Ms. Voyce said some of those plantings are massively invasive.

 

The application was carried to 1/4/06.

 

The applicant granted an extension of time to 1/31/06.

 

S-31-05 – STORAGE GROUP – PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9402, LOTS 7 & 8 IN B-1Z ZONE

 

Attorney David Zurav represented the applicant.

 

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

 

Mr. Carreaga gave an overview of the project stating they are looking to construct an 111,380 square foot self storage facility.  The site is in the B-1A zone and is a permitted use.  The property has been before the town previously for a few hundred residential homes.  That application was withdrawn.  With the original application there were numerous DEP permits with regard to a letter of interpretation, etc.  The LOI expired on 10/23/05, and we have applied for an extension of that.  The State has been to the site and have reviewed our application.  We have applied for a few general permits also.  The site is on Route 46.  The original application for homes had the DOT permit for the roadway, and we are proposing our roadway in the same place and have applied to DOT for that permit.  We have also applied to Morris County Planning Board and Soil Conservation.  The site is constrained with wetlands.  There is a wetlands buffer and a stream running through the property.  We anticipate DEP will give us a 50 foot buffer on the wetlands again.  We want to develop the site for self storage. The property has some slopes as shown on the exhibit A-1, colored rendering of sheet C-15 on the plans submitted.  We had to try to minimize the impact on the site with the plans.  There are some steep slopes to be disturbed, but there is a very small area of the property that isn’t constrained by steep slopes.   The buffer area from the wetlands encroaches up to the roadway, and we propose a detention basin.  We feel this is the best layout to minimize the amount  of dirt coming off the site.  We felt the best use was to build a retaining wall and work with the grades of the property.  The building would be two stories on the front and one story on the back.  We show about 5,400 yards of dirt that has to be removed from the site.  We determined the best location for a septic system is in the back.  We did soil logs for septic and for all the different areas for drywells and detention basins.  The site was all suitable soil regarding disposal of surface water for the drainage.  We found a relatively flat spot in the back for the septic system. 

 

Mr. Rilee asked if that area is planned for sewers.

 

Mr. Stern said he believes so.

 

Mr. Germinario said it is, and water as well.

 

Mr. Zurav said we will produce testimony that will indicate we will not need water or sewer, and we will not need sanitary facilities for the general public.

 

Ms. Voyce said if there is an office in the building, you will need it.  Also, there is currently a proposal to pull that sewer service area by DEP that is currently in the works.

 

Mr. Carreaga said the water requirements will be under 200 gallons a day for this facility.

 

Mr. Zoschak said the Fire Official also indicated he would like to see sprinklers and fire hydrants.

 

Mr. Stern said they propose a sprinkler building.

 

Mr. Carreaga said we do propose a sprinkler building and propose two 10,000-gallon underground storage tanks with a generator and electric pumps.  

 

Mr. Carreaga said there will be two two-story buildings.  Building #1 will have the office as well.  The access road would come up from Route 46 and the flow of traffic would go to the parking area in front.  There will be automatic gates that go around the facility.  There will be multiple security systems built in.

 

Mr. Germinario asked how the gates are used.

 

Mr. Carreaga said you would be able to drive onto the site and into the parking area in front of the office without going through a gate.

 

Mr. Behrens asked if anyone will be living on the site.

 

Mr. Carreaga said we do not propose that at this time.

 

Mr. Meyer asked about the elevations.

 

Mr. Carreaga said Route 46 is at about 1030, and the office first floor is at 1041.  There is a current drainage area that feeds into the stream that is less than 50 acres, and we have a previous letter from DEP to the original engineer for the site that said a stream encroachment permit was not necessary.  It falls underneath the 50 acre requirement.  The whole area is heavily wooded, so it won’t be that visible from Route 46.  It will be a filtered view.  We have applied to DOT for the entrance onto the site.  The entrance is designed for WB50 tractor trailers.  We are applying for right and left turns out of the site as there is no issue with sight distance.   Entering onto the site there is a culvert that crosses over the existing stream, and as we come up grade to the building, we have retaining walls.  Without the retaining walls there would be a lot more disturbance to the site.  The maximum height of the wall is 32 feet high.  We have to maintain the height because we have to keep the area low for the detention basin.

 

Mr. Carreaga said that is correct.  There are a number of other walls in the area that are that high.

 

Mr. Zoschak asked if the wall should be tiered.

 

Mr. Carreaga said it is not proposed to be tiered. We need to keep the height to keep enough space for the detention basin.  We are trying to minimize any impact on the Netcong Heights Apartments side.   Regarding access, if someone rents units, they access around the back of the site.  There are unloading zones and parking proposed in the back, as well as an area for future parking.  We do propose 60 spaces.  We are asking for a waiver of sidewalks around the buildings.

 

Mr. Germinario said there is a question regarding the noticing for this application.  Did you obtain a certified list of property owners from the Borough of Netcong?

 

Mr. Zurav said no.

 

Mr. Germinario said there are properties in Netcong that should have been served.

 

Mr. Zurav said he got the list from the Roxbury Tax Assessor and did serve the Borough of Netcong.  The only property in Netcong is Netcong Heights, and that one was noticed.

 

Mr. Zoschak asked if automobiles will be able to go inside the buildings.

 

Mr. Carreaga said no.

 

Mr. Carreaga stated the grading plan shows the retaining wall and shows the maximum height is 32 feet.  The wall starts out at 27 feet, goes down to 2 feet.  Inside the detention basin water flows out into the wetlands.  There will be minor modifications for the detention basin design, in particular sheet 2 shows the different drainage areas.  We included everything per the USGS maps.  The engineer states the Harley Davidson site does outlet their water into a pond which flows down into the piping on Route 46, so that area will have to be included in our revised drainage report.  There is actually 7.7 acres less than our calculations show.  There will be a gain of 1.2 acres going towards our property which equals a total drainage area of 43.4 acres.  There is no substantial change that we see to the detention basin size.  The engineer had also commented on the biofilter, and we will modify that to go to a vortex unit.  We are proposing a lot of landscaping.  Coming into the site the entire roadway will be planted with trees and shrubs.  We developed a tree removal plan, and we will be removing 230 trees and they are required to be replaced per the ordinance.  We propose a lot of screening to the Netcong Heights apartments.   We are maintaining the entire wooded area and putting plantings adjacent to the parking area.  There is a cleared area that we are supplementing with a number of trees.  The site will be barely visible.

 

Mr. Stern asked Mr. Carreaga to explain how the back portion of the site is to be done.

 

Mr. Carreaga said behind the property the only level spot not impacted by the detention basin, wetlands and wetlands buffers is the back.  We did soil logs and found this was the best place for the septic.  We looked at various areas in back but due to relatively shallow mottling by the wetlands area, we didn’t feel that was appropriate.  We decided to keep it as far away from the wetlands as possible and maintain some sort of buffer on the side for the septic.  The well itself is also proposed in the back.  By combining the septic and well lines, we can minimize trenching and tree removal. 

 

Mr. Rilee said if sewer goes to the front of the building, the ordinance requires that you hook up.  If that is the case, would a detention basin make sense in that area?

 

Mr. Carreaga said no.  It is much higher there.  We did cut into the hill to create a level parking area in the back, and we propose a retaining wall. 

 

Mr. Meyer asked how many parking spaces are required.

 

Mr. Carreaga said 60, and we are banking 22.

 

Edward Esse, architect for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his professional background, and was accepted by this Board.  He described the proposed buildings, stating it is a campus design with the front building that would have the 900 square foot office facility. 

 

Mr. Esse referred to Exhibit A-2, rendered version of architectural plan A3.l. 

 

Mr. Esse said we portray a two-story front, and a one-story front at the highest point of the topography.  There would be two structures with a wide accessway between them, and there is separation of units so that we can phase the buildings if desirable.  The front is two stories.  With this building type, we like to slope the building in one direction and put external drains on.  For drainage of rainwater, we like to slope the building in one direction and put on external drains.  We wanted to make sure we could collect the water, channel it underground and take it to the retention design. This is not a typical first generation storage facility.  It is fully air conditioned, fully heated, fire suppressed, and it keeps people from bringing in trucks, gasoline, etc.  because there is only one main entrance into each building. No elevators are required because there are entrances at every level.  Our prime clientele are insurance companies, architects, pharmaceutical companies, and anything that generates paper.  This type storage facility also is in areas with heavy residential development.  The buildings have drop ceilings in the hallways, sprinklers throughout.  We can move the walls of the units to meet the needs of the customer.

 

Mr. Esse said regarding fire suppression, we propose storage tanks underground with electric pumps.  The HVAC units would be inside the storage units with a louver, and it is flowed within the ceiling structure.  It will be thermostatically controlled.  This is an office-type structure rather than a storage-type structure that they used to do.  The finish will be drivit or stucco on the front and sides.  The remaining part will be a pebble grain finish.

 

Mr. Esse showed a sample of the type of finish to go on the walls (marked A-3).

 

There was discussion on the air conditioning system.  There will be 20 vents per side of the building.   The building hasn’t been actually designed at this time.

 

Ms. Voyce stated there was an EIS done for Southwinds, and there are quite a few discrepancies between the two.  There are questions about the LOI for wetlands.  Mr. Glasson has not looked at Roxbury’s Rare Threatened and Endangered Species Report.  On page 18 of the EIS for this application, it talks about groundwater in Mansfield – that should be corrected.  There is also a permit on page 20 about how this is important as a  rural and forested area.  I’m not sure that is the case here.  These questions should be relayed to Mr. Glasson.

 

Mr. Stern said regarding architecture, one issue is the height of the building at the entryway.

 

Mr. Carreaga said the actual elevation of the high point of the building at the entrance is 1068, and the average grade at the four corners is 1044.63.  The actual building height is 23.4 feet.  I will provide Mr. Stern with those numbers

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked that the engineer address the phasing of the project for the next hearing.  That would necessitate a grading plan for phase 1.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Rilee suggested the applicant address the professional reports with the staff for the next hearing.

 

The application was carried to 1/18/06.   They granted an extension of time to the end of January.

 

Mr. Zurav asked for a special meeting.

 

Mr. Meyer said we will schedule it for a regular meeting at this time.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the applicant’s engineer can generate a conceptual resubmission that can be discussed at staff level.

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 9:15 p.m.

 

Joseph Schwab arrived at this time.

 

S-7-05 – PRIMAX – ADVANCE AUTO – SITE PLAN FOR AUTO PARTS STORE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 6502, LOT 18 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Alan Goldstein represented the applicant.  He stated the issues we feel need to address are traffic, architecture, and we have our planner here this evening.  At the last hearing, we had agreed to provide the funds for the Board to hire its own traffic consultant.  I understand Mr. Dean is here tonight to present his report.

 

Gary Dean, traffic consultant for the Board, was sworn in.  He said it is my understanding there have been revisions to the site plan and are different exhibits relative to the delivery truck.  Through consultation with the Board professionals, that seems to be a primary area of concern.

 

Brett Skapinetz of Bohler Engineering stepped forward.  He stated the last exhibit we provided to Mr. Dean and the Board is Truck Circulation Exhibit C dated 10/19/05.  The exhibit depicts the dimensions of the type of truck that would be delivering goods.  We also show the updated truck circulation through the site, using that vehicle.

 

Mr. Rilee said it was testified earlier that this is not a typical delivery truck, it is the one you would use for this particular site.

 

Mr. Skapinetz said that is correct.  It is not unique to just this site.  It is used at some other facilities.

 

Mr. Dean stated he would generally agree with the findings that development of the site as an automobile parts store, limited to the sale of the parts, will be a generally low traffic generator.  Regarding the traffic statement, there is a statement regarding trip generation that they won’t have a significant traffic impact and that the applicant has complied with the parking requirements for retail stores.  I did not hear the testimony, but any concerns relative to on-site repair or servicing of vehicles outside the building may have parking implications as well as zoning implications.  There is a minor discrepancy between the traffic statement and the site plan amendment.  There is a reduction of 3 parking spaces, with 31 currently proposed.  There was no information in the traffic study relative to counts and the activity along Rt. 46 and the ability of traffic to safely ingress and egress the property.  It has been represented the applicant has gotten an access permit from DOT.  I have not seen the permit.  I believe the property is considered nonconforming by DOT standards and that by virtue of that designation there would be certain traffic limits placed on the property.  Also, DOT does not typically doesn’t permit access anywhere where there are dedicated turning lanes across the site frontage.   There is a dedicated turning lane, and we assume the application included a waiver for that requirement of the State Highway Access Management Code which regulates all access.  We also noted the traffic statement was completed in 2003 before the Ledgewood Circle improvements.  Based on observations of the improved traffic control, I would ask the applicant if there is any queuing or stacking of traffic that may appear during peak hours that could impede safe and efficient access to the site.

 

Mr. Dean referred to Truck Circulation Exhibit C and said the applicant proposed a relatively wide internal isle as one enters the site.  The concern is that there is an abrupt jog in the centerline striping.  An entering vehicle has to make an extra right hand turn to avoid a head on condition with vehicles coming from the rear parking area or the parking area closest to the store.  It is not the best design and warrants a closer look by the applicant.  It may be possible to open the throat at the entrance.  Our comment SP3 discussed the truck circulation exhibit using a WB40 articulated tractor trailer truck..  The amended exhibit depicts a different type vehicle, a pup trailer.  We have not seen manufacturer’s information as to whether this truck exists.  What is depicted is a conventional cab with a sleeper section and dual axels rear on the tractor.  I am not sure that truck exists within an 11 foot dimension.  What is also depicted is a 28½ foot trailer section.  It becomes a zoning and enforcement issue.  What happens the day the 53-foot trailer shows up?  Will it unload on Route 46? Will it back into the site?  Will it interfere with parked vehicles or create another safety hazard?  That is something the Board has to weigh.    We recommended some cross-hatching on the far easterly end of the site in the double row of parking. 

 

Mr. Dean said the last area of concern is that 4 employee parking spaces are designated at the southerly end of the site.  When a delivery truck is within the loading area, for the next two or three spaces, a customer cannot back out of that space because the truck is in the way.  If the truck can be moved a littler further to the south, there may be enough room.

 

Mr. Stern said there is not a designated loading area separate from the traffic isle.  That requires a design waiver.

 

Mr. Dean said that is a result of the property and the design itself.  I don’t know whether the applicant explored alternative designs for the loading area so that none of the parking spaces were impacted.

 

Mr. Dean said regarding truck circulation, referring to Exhibit C, the truck would approach from the west on Route 46, make a right into the site, and pull forward to the northwest corner of the building.  The vehicle would then back up into the isle closest to the building, pull forward up to almost the property limits, and then begin his backing maneuver into the loading area.  I have concerns with that movement as the truck would block the entrance. 

 

Mr. Rilee said the lines were drawn to accommodate the perfect maneuver which doesn’t always take place.  The entire truck maneuver takes place where cars are entering the site.  Ultimately, even if we adjust the hours of delivery, it becomes an enforcement problem.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the exhibit not only precludes an automobile coming into the site, but what happens with the truck when someone is exiting the site?  Does he have to stop on the highway?

 

Mr. Dean said that is correct.

 

Mr. Zoschak said he has a problem believing this particular size truck is the only kind that will come to the site.  Also, when the truck comes into the site, there will be a conflict, even if you used a regular size truck.

 

Mr. Goldstein stated there will be no repair work on the site.  That includes changing batteries, windshield wipers, no carts, etc.  Regarding the truck turning situation, this is a difficult site.  Mr. Dean testified the use is a low intensity use.  The use is permitted in the zone.  No matter what use you have, there will be some kind of delivery vehicle, and you would have these issues with any kind of delivery vehicle.  We think it is an appropriate use, and we want to work with the Board on this.

 

Mr. Zoschak said there is no reason it can’t be developed with a smaller building where the delivery truck can go around the building.

 

Mr. Meyer said the sense of the Board is that these issues have to be addressed before we go ahead with the application.

 

Mr. Goldstein said there will be only one or two deliveries a week and initially we had wanted to use a larger truck.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said we have had other sites where the Board has strictly prohibited tractor trailers on the site.

 

Mr. Bautz said it doesn’t even work with the smaller trailer.  With smaller trucks and a smaller building, it might work.

 

Ms. Voyce said there are reasons why this applicant wants to be here.  I don’t believe the site cannot be redeveloped.  It could be done with a smaller store and with a different product.  The tractor doesn’t work.  It is not the appropriately sized store and appropriately sized trucks for this site.

 

Mr. Goldstein said this is clearly not the only project that can fit on the site.  The applicant has purchased the property, and I was suggesting if we can resolve the truck issues, this is an appropriate use for the property.

 

There was a five-minute recess at 10:00 as requested by the applicant.

 

After the recess, Mr. Goldstein said there are minor modifications that could be made, but I don’t know that the issues the Board has raised can be addressed.  Mr. Neil will go back to Advance Auto Parts and ask them if they would agree to make deliveries when the store is closed. I need some assurances from the Board that if he were to do that it would be acceptable to the Board. 

 

Mr. Meyer said there are other issues.

 

Ms. Voyce said that kind of solution doesn’t work.  We have seen that in the past.  To me, that is not an acceptable solution.

 

Mr. Bautz asked what time the deliveries would be.

 

Mr. Neil said early morning.

 

Mr. Meyer said that becomes an enforcement problem.  I feel it would be a good solution.  The only direction we can give you is to go and find that out.

 

Mr. Stern said you don’t have a designated loading area, or a place to locate one.  You have put in a very large building on a very narrow site.  It is very restrictive.

 

Mr. Rilee said he agrees.  It is a difficult site.

 

Mr. Stern said if you are in compliance with the codes, the problem is solved.

 

Mr. Skapinetz said if we have a letter from the Senor Vice President of Store Operations that they won’t be backing into the site, I don’t know what else we can do.  I am very frustrated.  We have gone with a smaller truck, redesigned the building, redesigned the parking, have shown a willingness to limit the hours.

 

Mr. Meyer said going with the smaller truck still doesn’t work.  If the applicant can come up with other alternatives, we are still willing to listen.

 

Mr. Germinario said not all things are directed from corporate management.  That’s what makes the problem.

 

Mr. Rilee said we have to plan for the site.  There are other sites on Route 46 that might be more accommodating.

 

Ms. Voyce said she has pictures taken in July of another Advance Auto.  That is a much bigger site and there is no landscaping.  We were told in July that there were no freestanding stores in the area.  That is at Routes 57 and 31 in Washington Township.  The conditions at that site won’t happen here.  That has no landscaping, no islands, etc. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

The application was carried to 1/04/06.   The applicant granted an extension of time to 1/31/06. 

 

Mr. Stern informed the Board that there is a meeting next Wednesday, and one of the items on the agenda is the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan. 

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:20 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/