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

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Scott Meyer presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.


BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Scott Meyer, Larry Sweeney, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Gary Behrens, Joseph Schwab, Robert DeFillippo, Robert Schultz.


ABSENT:  Jim Rilee, Steven Alford, Charles Bautz.


PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Russell Stern, John Hansen for Paul Ferriero.


Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary


Minutes of 3/7/07


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


Roll as follows:  Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.






Mr. Stern stated this application is for a 2 lot subdivision in the R-3 district.  One completeness waiver for utility connections is required.  The only request we make is that the new connections be shown on the drawings prior to public hearing


Mr. Zoschak made a motion to deem the application complete with waiver granted for completeness only.  Mr. Behrens seconded.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.


The application was scheduled for 5/15/07.






                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD



 Decided:  March 21, 2007

 Memorialized:  April 4, 2007




BLOCK 6303, LOTS 6 & 7



WHEREAS, Etel Realty, LLC (hereinafter the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter the "Board") for final site plan approval on March 21, 2007; and


WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete by the Board, and a public hearing was held on   3/21/07; and


WHEREAS, it has been determined that the Applicant has complied with all procedural requirements, rules and  regulations of the Board, and that all required provisions of procedural compliance have been filed with the Board; and


WHEREAS, the Board makes the following findings and conclusions based upon the documents, testimony and other evidence comprising the hearing record:


1.  The property which is the subject of the application consists of 1.33 acres located in the B-2 Highway Business District.  By Resolution memorialized 3/2/05, Applicant was granted preliminary major site plan approval with design waivers to construct a 3,930 square foot addition to the existing Crib City store.  The Applicant is now before the Board seeking final site plan approval.


2.  The development of the subject property to which the Board’s decision herein pertains is depicted and described in the following drawings and/or plans:


Prepared by Stewart Surveying & Engineering, LLC


-               Sheets 1 & 2, Final Site Plan, dated 1/25/07


3.  The Board’s planning and engineering professionals and/or consultants submitted the following reports concerning their respective reviews of the application, which are part of the hearing record:


Russell Stern, PP, dated 3/13/07

Paul Ferriero, PE, dated 3/13/07


4.  In the course of the public hearing, no exhibits were marked.


5.  In the course of the public hearing, the Applicant was represented by                Gary Mizzone, Esq., and the Applicant presented the testimony of the following witnesses, which testimony is part of the hearing record:


Alfred Stewart, P.E., engineering expert

Kevin Lucas, principal contractor

Edward Kloss, owner


6.  The Board finds that the Applicant has constructed the project substantially in accordance with the approved preliminary site plans, subject to the completion of those items set forth in the conditions herein below.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board does hereby approve the final site plan as depicted and described in the drawings and/or plans referenced hereinabove.


This approval is subject to the following conditions which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:


1.  The following items shall be bonded and completed by 5/1/07:


a.             Provide 4 permanent wall lights along the Route 10 elevation, 4 permanent wall lights along the Mary Louise elevation, and 3 permanent wall lights along the rear building elevation per the approved plans.


b.             Install missing bench, trash receptacles and ash urns in front of building (1 per tenant).


c.             Paint handrail located along the southerly and westerly building elevations.


d.             Provide concrete sidewalk between the dumpster enclosure and building per the approved plans.


e.             Install 2 interior bollards at the rear of the trash enclosure.


f.              Complete installation of the northerly board on board fence to the parking area (6’ height to front of building, 4’ height beyond that) subject to review and approval by Township Planner.


g.             Repair saw-cut pavement along the center and westerly end of Mary Louise Avenue curb line and driveway.


h.             Topsoil and seed on both sides of the westerly Route 10 sidewalk.


i.              Install missing sod at northerly portion of the Route 10 sidewalk and at the Route 10/Mary Louise Avenue intersection.


j.              Topsoil and seed grass areas.


k.             Topsoil and seed at westerly terminus of Mary Louise Avenue sidewalk.


l.              Topsoil and sod along roadway sidewalks, as needed.


m.            A tree inventory shall be provided as more trees were removed than permitted by the approved plan.  Additional replacement trees will be required.


n.             Re-lay sod as necessary.


o.             Replace dead/marginal plants.


p.             Stake shade trees.


q.             Remove plant tags.


r.              Remove deadwood from existing trees.


s.             Plant three (3) stockpiled Taxus located at the rear parking lot.


t.              Remove stones from lawn area.


u.             Remove trash.


v.             Entrance apron is paved with striped cross walk instead of concrete apron as specified on plan.  Board approval is required.


w.            Sewer cleanout at southwest corner of building shall be set at grade.


x.             Install flow channels in all storm structures.


2.  Applicant shall install 4 temporary wall lights along both the Route 10 and Mary Louise elevations and 3 temporary wall lights along the rear elevation acceptable to the Township Planner prior to Certificate of Occupancy.


3.  The following items shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:


a.             Provide concrete wheel stops at handicap parking stalls.


b.             Install Mary Louise/Route 10 four-way street sign.


c.             Missing “No Parking, Fire Lane” signs shall be installed.


d.             Install window well type protection for below grade gas valve.


e.             Replace stop signs with 30” signs.


f.              Install handicap accessible sidewalk ramp at west end of sidewalk on Mary Louise Avenue.


4.  The following conditions from the Preliminary Site Plan Resolution are reiterated:


Condition 1 - Lots 6 and 7 shall be merged, and proof of such merge shall be submitted to the Board prior to final site plan approval.


Condition 16 - Future tenants shall be made aware that Section 13-8.911.1F limits window signs to a period not to exceed 20 days and that all such signs individually or collectively do not exceed 30% of all available window space on which the signs are located.


Condition 33 - A copy of the landscape guarantee shall be provided as a condition of final site plan approval (13-8.805D).


Condition 37 - Future tenants shall be notified that Section 13-7.21A03 prohibits the operation of a commercial establishment within 200 feet of a residential district during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.


Condition 39 - The use of tractor/trailers on this site is prohibited.


Condition 41 - The proposed sight triangle shall be dedicated prior to final approval.


Condition 42 - As a condition of this approval, pursuant to Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the Applicant shall request and obtain from the Township Engineer a determination of their pro-rata contribution for off-tract improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.  Said contribution shall be paid in full prior to final site plan/subdivision approval.


Condition 46 - Pursuant to Section 13-7.829, the Applicant shall pay a mandatory development fee equal to two percent (2.0%) of the total equalized assessed valuation of the nonresidential development.  Fifty percent (50%) of the fee shall be posted prior to the issuance of any building permit and the remainder paid prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.


Condition 47 - Applicant shall source separate and recycle all mandated material as required by the Municipal Recycling Ordinance and the Morris County Solid Waste Management Plan both during construction and for the duration of occupancy.


Condition 48 - Applicant shall submit annual recycling tonnage reports to the Municipal Recycling Coordinator.


Condition 49 - Applicant shall meet with the Municipal Recycling Coordinator to review all recycling requirements.


Condition 55 - This approval is subject to the payment of all appropriate fees and taxes, including sewer fees.


5.  The sight-triangle easement (Condition 41) shall be reviewed and approved by the Board and Township Attorneys and filed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.  The easement shall be shown on the final site plan.


6.  The Deed merging Lots 6 and 7 (Condition 1) shall be reviewed and approved by the Board Attorney and filed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.


7.  A copy of the final certificate of compliance from the Morris County Soil Conservation District must be filed with the Board.


8.  Payment of off-site and off-tract contributions shall be verified, if applicable.


9.  Payment of the mandatory development fee shall be verified.


10.  This approval is subject to all other approvals required by any governmental agency having jurisdiction over the subject property.


11.  This approval is subject to the payment in full by the Applicant of all taxes, fees, escrows, assessments and other amounts due and owing to the Township and/or any agency thereof.


12.  If the Soil Conservation District, Morris County Planning Board, or any other governmental body from which approval is necessary causes, through their examination of the plans as recited in this resolution, any revisions to said plans then, in that event, same shall be submitted to the Planning Board Engineer.  If the Planning Board Engineer deems said revisions to be significant, the Applicant shall return to the Planning Board for further review and approval.


13.  Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6 months of the date of memorialization.  Failure on the part of the Applicant to satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval null and void.



The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Resolution of the Roxbury Township Planning Board memorializing the action taken by the Board at its meeting of April 4, 2007


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


Roll as follows:  Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes.






Attorney John Wichiscala represented the applicant.  He stated he represents the applicant and the owner of the subject property.  The property is about 63 acres in size and is in a public water and sewer district.  There are some flat areas and some environmentally sensitive areas.  It is in the OR 5 zone and the B1A zone.  It is our understanding the property has been the subject of varied proposals, and nothing ever came to fruition.  It is at a good location.  Sagima acquired the property last year.  The initial concept proposal was for a residential age restricted community.  We discussed that with professionals in the township, and the response was lukewarm at best.  We now are proposing commercial uses.  The township professionals had stressed sensitivity to the environmental concerns.  This will have office buildings, flex office space and a standalone theme restaurant.  The plan does conform with the zoning as far as permitted uses and we comply with most of the bulk standards as well.  Slope variances will be required.  We are very sensitive to the traffic issue as well.  There will be a significant fiscal benefit to the town.


Erik Keller of Omland Engineering was present.  He referred to an aerial photo of the property and described the location of the site.  Most of the property is in the OR5 district except for Lot 9 which is in the B1A zone.   The property is primarily vacant.  There is a house on Lot 9 sitting up close to the road.  The site is wooded, and there are pockets of wetlands and steep slopes.  We have obtained a LOI from the DEP and they have said there are intermediate resource value wetlands, and there is a 50 foot buffer required.  We are in the Highlands Planning Area. 


Mr. Keller referred to an aerial photo with an overlay showing the proposal, and said we are proposing a restaurant in the B1A portion, a medical building, flex office/warehouse building, and a 3 story general medical office building in the OR5 zone.  The main access would be Mountain Road out to the intersection of Route 206.  We also propose a right-in/right-out driveway on Rt. 206.  The site is in the Musconetcong sewer service area.  There are water facilities in the area that can be extended.  We are located at a major highway interchange. The density of the project will have large areas of open space.  The wetland and transition areas will be deed restricted.  The OR5 zone permits an FAR of 15% and we are at 7%.  The B1A zone permits 15% and we are at 5%.  The impervious coverage in the OR5 portion is 16%, 40% permitted.  In the B1A zone we are at 50%, but if you look at the entire tract, the B1A lot is 3 acres, so it is roughly 5% of the total.  If you look at the overall lot, it would be about 17%, whereas 41% would be permitted.  It is a very low intensity development and are conserving a lot of open space. The overall disturbance to the site is a little over 29%.  We also provide significant buffers to the residential areas to the east.  We will need to fully comply with the stormwater regulations.  One of the things we were asked to do was a preliminary grading plan.  The plan is not complete, but there is a good indication of where walls will be required and what the limits of disturbance would be.  Regarding the height of the walls, we strived to minimize the clearing of wooded areas and the amount of disturbance.  70% of the tract will remain untouched by this development.  The flex building is terraced into the slopes.  The buildings we are showing have not been fully designed, and we will provide additional detailing and features.


Mr. Keller stated regarding the steep slopes, there is a series of steep slope areas.  Where the flex building is there is a relatively flat area and then you drop down to the wetlands and then rise up to the mountain.  The ordinance looks at three categories.  In the 15-20% slopes, we will disturb 33% of the slopes – 35% maximum.  In the 20 – 25% category we would disturb 27% - 15% maximum. In the over 25% category, we are at 26% - 3% maximum.  It is a function of the fact that we have wetlands areas running through the middle of the site.  We would need various approvals from the County Planning Board, Soil Conservation, DOT, and DEP.


Mr. Zoschak asked if any of the larger steep slope disturbance can be mitigated.


Mr. Stern said we have seen many concept plans.  They have actually reduced it when compared to some of the other concepts.  The uses proposed are permitted uses.  When they come in for the variance, they are going in the most logical pods for development.  In looking at the steep slopes variances, and it was impacting adjoining properties that would be a valid concern, there seems to be a significant topographic distinction between where these slopes are and the residential properties.  This type of development has an incredibly extensive road network.  At some point there had to be a balance between the extent of the improvements and the size of the buildings.  Are these going to be private roads?


Mr. Keller said he would assume so.


Mr. Stern asked if this will be developed in phases.


Mr. Keller said probably.  Our goal is to try and balance the site from an earthwork standpoint. 


Mr. Zoschak said a main concern is traffic.  I don’t see a big problem with Mountain Road.  I do see a problem with the proximity with the entranceway to Route 80.


Mr. Keller said that will be addressed when we are discussing traffic.


Mr. Hansen said the site will have to comply with the stormwater regulations.  Since there is varying topography, that will be a challenge.  I would suggest on-site permeability testing as soon as possible, in the wet season. 


Mr. DeFillippo asked if the flex building will be more like a transfer station.


Mr. Keller said it will be more of a warehouse.  There won’t be a lot of tractor trailers.  There will be more single unit trucks.  The type of users in this type building would be in the category of mechanical contractors, etc. 


Mr. Meyer asked if there are any endangered species.


Mr. Keller said no, but we may be restricted on when we can clear trees.


Mr. Keller stated the traffic consultant could not be present, but he could address some of the traffic issues.   Traffic counts were done last week on Route 206 and Mountain Road.  Rt. 206 has a lot of traffic – about 2,900 vehicles per hours.  For Mountain Road and Old Ledgewood Road there is a maximum of about 50 vehicles.  We have requested accident reports from the Police Department  We haven’t received a report from them at this point. Currently the DOT states we don’t meet the volume requirements for a traffic signal.  We will be doing an added level of analysis.  The development is not high intensity.  The peak hour volumes in the morning would be a little over 300 trips.  In the afternoon it would be about 380 trips.  We think the amount of traffic will help us in meeting the warrants for a signal but wouldn’t negatively impact the overall infrastructure or the highway system. 


Mr. Meyer asked what would happen if a signal is not approved.


Mr. Keller said we have the right-in and right-out driveway.  We also have the ability to have the traffic run through the Netcong Circle and come back.  I don’t think Mountain Road will be a desirable way for people to leave the site.   That is a discussion we will have to have with DOT.


Mr. Behrens said regarding the right-in/right-out, I can’t see the right-out there due to the proximity with the entrance onto Route 80. 


Mr. Keller pointed out there is enough room where you wouldn’t have to get onto the Rt. 80 ramp.  You could continue on Rt. 206.


Mr. Zoschak said, coming southbound on Route 206, will there be a dedicated, striped left turn into Mountain Road?


Mr. Keller said we probably wouldn’t meet the requirements for a lane there.


Mr. Schwab stated it is very difficult now to make a left onto Mountain Road.


The Board members agreed it would be very dangerous. 


Mr. Hansen suggested the Board entertain hiring a traffic consultant and work with the traffic consultant and the DOT. 


Mr. Meyer stated the Board is very sensitive to the safety issues regarding accesses along Rt. 206.


Mr. Stern said along with this proposal would be a total improvement of Mountain Rd. to Rt. 206?


Mr. Keller said that would be part of our proposal.  This side of the road is in the preservation area, and that may affect our ability to do any realignment.  We will look into that.


Mr. Zoschak said traffic is one of the major concerns with this site.


Mr. Meyer asked what kind of restaurant is intended.


Mr. Keller said a chain restaurant similar to TGI Friday’s.


There was discussion on signage, and the Board indicated a monument sign would be preferred.


Mr. Schwab said for the medical building, is it possible to move that further away from the residential properties?


Mr. Keller said we will look into that.  We do want to align the driveways between the two uses.


Mr. Stern asked what the view of the complex would be from Rt. 80.


Mr. Keller said what you would see is the wooded area with the retaining wall behind that, and the façade of the medical building behind that.  You would also see the flex building.  We can plant in certain areas for some buffering.


Mr. Zoschak asked about the retaining wall.  Coming eastbound on Route 80, drivers will be able to see it.  Will it be decorative block?


Mr. Keller said yes.


Art Bernard testified regarding fiscal impact.  He stated fiscal impact is an estimated comparison of the revenues that would be generated from the proposal and the cost associated with servicing people that work there.  We have used the per capita multiplier approach in the Urban Land Institute’s Development Impact Assessment Handbook.  We based it on 45,000 sq. ft. off office space in the flex building along with the 45,000 sq. ft. of warehouse.  It is also based on 59,320 sq. ft. of general office or medical office space, and 65,000 sq. ft. in restaurant.  We valued the proposal at just over $30,000,000.  We come up with an assessed value of $17,700,000.  When we apply the tax rate, we come up with total revenues of $592,550, of which the municipality gets $143,850, the County gets about $76,500, and the school district gets over $372,000.  In terms of cost, we figured the cost of servicing each worker, and came up with a per capita cost per worker of about $209.  We anticipate the development would generate 419 jobs.  In summary, the municipal revenues would be $143,847, minus the cost of $87,571, and there would be a positive impact to the municipality of $56,276.  The school would have a positive net impact of $372,267.


Mr. Wichiscala said the property owner is anxious to proceed with the development, but we are feeling the Highlands pressure.  This property, under the regional Master Plan and the Land Use Capabilities map, is presently slated to be placed in the protection zone.  We have appeared at one of the Council’s public sessions in January and gave rationale as to why it should not be in the protection zone, because of the highway access, location, public sewer and water district, proximity of other commercial development.  We have asked that they change the designation.  We have also submitted a letter to the Township Council to support our request at the Highlands Council.  We hope they give it appropriate consideration during the public comment period. 


Mr. Stern said previously, the Township bonded for the expansion of the Musconetcong sewage treatment plant in anticipation of the growth that was going to occur along the Route 206 corridor. As a result of State planning designations and other things, we haven’t realized that growth.  This is a property where we could realize that growth.  This is what that expansion envisioned.


Mr. Stern said the main concerns of the Board at this time are traffic and steep slopes.


Mr. Zoschak suggested the applicant and DOT contact the Township Manager.


Ms. DeMasi asked if this application goes forward, would the Board want to look into hiring a traffic consultant before the applicant goes to DOT? 


It was the feeling of the Board they would want to have a traffic consultant.


Ms. DeMasi said before the next meeting we will get a number of consultants for the Board to make a determination.




Mr. Meyer asked for comments on the bylaws. 


Mr. Zoschak stated there are committees that we no longer have. 


Mr. Stern said the ordinance overrides some of the bylaws.


Mr. Behrens stated if you took the bylaws from 1983 and made the corrections that we know about, and then give it to us for comment, it may be a lot easier for us to review it.


Mr. Stern suggested the Board members should flag what they know is obvious.


It was determined the Board members will give their comments to Ms. DeMasi.


The meeting was adjourned by motion at 9:15 p.m.



                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary