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, Richard Zoschak, Larry Sweeney, Gary Behrens, Joseph Schwab, Michael Shadiack, Jim Rilee, Charles Bautz, Robert DeFillippo.


ABSENT:  Robert Schultz.


PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Tom Germinario, Russell Stern, Paul Ferriero.


Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary


Mr. Meyer announced that application PBA-07-06, Roxbury 2002 LLC/Philips, will not be heard and is carried to 5/2/07.






Mr. Stern stated the proposal is to internally subdivide the building for two uses –a billiard hall and a dollar store.  They are requesting completeness waivers for water and sewer issues, and for location of utilities beyond 100 feet of the site.  The recommendation is to deem the application complete.


Mr. Rilee made a motion to deem the application complete with waivers granted for completeness only.   Mr. Bautz seconded.


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


The application was scheduled for 5/16/07.




Mr. Rilee made a motion to deny the application without prejudice.  Mr. Zoschak seconded.


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






Attorney Jason Rittie represented the applicant. 


Douglas Kuiken was present.  In answer to questions from Mr. Rittie, Mr. Kuiken stated  regarding the number of parking spaces, it is my experience that 44 parking spaces is sufficient.  We do no manufacturing on site.  As to outdoor lumber storage, none of that is on unpaved surfaces.  As to cutting of treated lumber, we would agree to cut treated lumber inside the drive thru area, in the main building.  The untreated lumber that is stored outside would be cut where it is located in multiple places on site.  The cutting of lumber is a minor part of the business.  We do cut engineered lumber, but mostly we cut it to lengths.  It is not excessive.  Most of the lumber orders are pre-ordered.  We inventory many different lengths of lumber. 


Mr. Meyer asked how much cutting is done on a daily basis.


Mr. Kuiken stated there are days where we will not cut.  There are also days when we may cut 12 to 25 times.  Each cut might last as long as 10 seconds to 30 seconds.  It is not a continuous operation.


Mr. Rittie asked if there is a percentage of the overall lumber that is treated.


Mr. Kuiken said about 11% is treated.  The treated lumber is treated with ACQ.  It usually is used for decks.  We sell materials that may go into a pergola as well.  Some may be landscape ties.  It is extensively used throughout the country.  In 2003, the industry took a voluntary change to ACQ.  The DEP and EPA has spent a lot of time testing and has given it their approval.  The old system had arsenic, and that is not used in the material we sell.


Mr. Rittie said all treated lumber will be stored inside the warehouse or under cover.


Mr. Rittie asked if at the current time, the applicant is not proposing an above ground diesel tank.


Mr. Kuiken said that is correct, but we will propose it at some time in the future. 


Mr. Bautz asked if their will be cutting of plastics and composites.


Mr. Kuiken stated we don’t cut composites.  We sell them in set lengths.


Mr. Stern asked if the cutting areas are stationary areas.


Mr. Kuiken said it is portable, and is mostly done with a chainsaw.  Inside the building, we will most likely have a set station for cutting. 


Mr. Stern asked if they will be cutting masonry landscape products.


Mr. Kuiken said no.


Mr. Rittie asked about parking of the trucks and forklifts.


Mr. Kuiken said we would want to park them on the interior of the building, and would also like to have them backed up to the loading docks, and if possible, under a T-shed.  Behind the sales office, in the primary warehouse, would be steel racking for palletized materials; areas for bulk stacked items like plywood; highly perishable items; windows.  There is a height variance requested for the height of the lumber stored under the T-sheds.  They would be on cantilevered racks that would exceed 14 feet.  Regarding stacked lumber on site, in my experience, materials will not be perfectly piled at all times.  The rendering is just an architectural rendering of where the materials would be stored.  The lumber is moved from place to place at different times. 


Mr. DeFillippo asked why the site is oriented the way it is.


Mr. Kuiken said because of some DEP issues, and it caused us to situate the building where it is shown as it serves to buffer the residential area.


Mr. DeFillippo said his concern is the noise coming from the buildings.


Mr. Kuiken said there is not much noise coming from the building.


Mr. Rilee said one of the most beautiful sites in the County is Horseshoe Lake.  I am concerned that there is not enough buffer shown.  A 14 foot outdoor storage lumber yard next to Horseshoe Lake is not desirable.


Mr. Rittie said testimony from our engineer will show that we have taken that into consideration.


Mr. Kuiken said we believe we have done more to maintain  the natural beauty of the site than the previously approved A & P.


Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Stern for an overview of the variances.


Mr. Stern stated the application does require several variances.  A lumber yard is a permitted use in the district. Variances are needed for:


- public community well within 500 feet

-location of outdoor storage

-screening of outdoor storage

-buffer parallel to R-3 district properties

-disturbance of steep slopes

-building height (main building)


Mr. Meyer said to my mind, the big concerns are quality of life from Horseshoe Lake and for the residents on Eyland Avenue.  In my opinion the way the building is situated is the best for the residents. As to Horseshoe Lake, couldn’t you create a shed of some sort along that side of the property?  If that was done, and we could shift the building to get the 35-foot setback, it would solve some issues for me.


Mr. Rittie said there are restrictions on the site by DEP that prohibit us from putting that type of structure there.   There will be further testimony from the engineer on that.  Our options were limited as to what we could do along the Horseshoe Lake property.


Mr. Ferriero said the applicant will have to address the negative impacts.  What is the issue about a shed in that area?  I would like to hear that from the engineer.


William Byrne, architect for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background and was accepted.  In answer to questions from Mr. Rittie, Mr. Byrne stated he has made some changes to the front elevation.  The main entranceway was enhanced with façade treatments and column detail along the Route 10 side.  We have added a façade emblem sign to add architectural treatment.  At the staff meeting, all the elements in Mr. Stern’s report were implemented in the design.  


Mr. Byrne referred to three architectural renderings:


Color rendering of main entryway elevation (marked A-3)

Overview color rendering – (marked A-4)

Sight Line Drawing – (marked A-5)


Mr. Byrne addressed the architectural items in Mr. Stern’s report.


1.2 – addressed – will provide details of the 2’ x 3’ sign

1.4 – to be addressed at a later hearing

2.2 – agreed – will comply with ordinance

2.3 – canopy lights will be recessed lights with flush lens


Mr. Byrne addressed the architectural items in Mr. Stern’s 2/28/07 report updated 4/4/07.


1.11 – Mr. Byrne referred to A-3 showing the sight lines, stating it shows that from the point of the sight line, the height difference allows us to show +-7’ of the façade.  We crosshatched and shaded the area that would be allowed by ordinance.  It would allow us about an additional 6 to 7 feet.  Our feeling was that by having a pitched roof we were able to cut the height considerably.  By increasing the height at the center of the building, it seemed to us that this design offers many advantages.


Mr. Bautz said most of those houses are two-story homes.


Mr. Byrne said it would raise the line of site.  It would probably change it from 7’ being visible to about 12’.  It would not exceed the height if we were to conform with the ordinance height for the whole building.  Aesthetically, this is more attractive than a flat-roofed building.  If it were a parapet building, it would be likely there would be some mechanicals on the building.  The workings of the lumberyard would be completely concealed by the building.


Mr. Rilee said his concern is the monotonous expanse of 350 feet of building.  The side of the building from Horseshoe Lake and Eyland Avenue will be very viewable.  That side is a lot of plain, industrial-looking wall. 


Mr. Byrne said regarding the elevation viewed from Eyland Avenue, it is a little monotonous.  It was our feeling that keeping the back elevation as simple as possible would make it as di minimus as possible.


Mr. Bautz said the building is 350 feet in length.  We are looking for something a little more detailed and attractive.


Mr. Meyer asked for Mr. Stern’s opinion.


Mr. Stern stated the architect and I discussed this matter, and the argument falls on both sides on how to treat it.  It is a very long building.  They are providing some buffering.  There is a proposal for a 6’ high board fence, and there is more landscaping proposed.  Landscaping doesn’t last forever.  I had the same concern about the view from Eyland Avenue.  The Board needs to determine whether to keep it simple so it doesn’t draw attention, or to add treatment to make it attractive.


Mr. Zoschak suggested some windows on both sides just to break it up a little.


Mr. DeFillippo said he would prefer to see the 35 foot setback, and add landscaping.


Discussion.  It was determined the applicant will return with sketches of how it would look with different treatments.


Mr. Rittie stated there are also sight lines shown from Horseshoe Lake on the plans.


Mr. Byrne stated the view from Horseshoe Lake would be across the 6’ high fence and landscaping, and what we show is about 12’ of façade.  The distance is about 200 feet.  The view from Route 10 would be the vegetative buffer, and about 7’ of the façade. 


Mr. Rilee asked what the view would be of the roll-up doors from Horseshoe Lake.


Mr. Byrne said you would probably see the top third of the doors.


Mr. Stern said the concerns of the Board are valid, and the Board has to look at the negative criteria regarding the variances.


Regarding Mr. Stern’s 2/28/07 report –


1.13 – no rooftop mechanical units proposed at this time – will be verified – none will be along the westerly or southerly building elevation

1.27 – addressed

1.33, 1.35 – agreed


PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Byrne


Valerie Rivera stepped forward.  She asked how many tons of cooling is required to cool the building.


Mr. Kuiken stated the only air conditioned space will be in the front on the easterly side of the building. 


Ms. Rivera asked the reason for the buffer requirement.


Mr. Meyer said the buffers are required to protect the residents and adjoining properties.  They are requesting a 10 foot variance from the ordinance requirement.


Ms. Rivera asked why the request is being made.


Mr. Meyer said the engineer will testify to that.


Ms. Rivera asked what recourse the residents have if there is noise emanating from the building.


Mr. Meyer said the Health Department oversees the noise ordinance.


Ms. Rivera asked if there will be parking on the side of the building.


Mr. Byrne said yes.


No one else stepped forward.




There was a 5 minute recess at 8:45 p.m.


Adam Remick, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in. 


In answer to questions from Mr. Rittie, Mr. Remick stated he prepared the site plan and he gave an overview of each sheet of the site plan. 


Sheet 1 – cover sheet shows the lot and surrounding area – the site meets all bulk standards of the B-2 zone.  We request variances for guardhouse setback; parking not 500 feet from an active well; parking of trailers (possibly); storage yard for building materials within 500 feet of an active well ; maximum height allowance.


Mr. Germinario stated the variance from the parking of trailers does not apply here.  It is aimed at the type of facility that has trailer bodies parked on an indefinite basis.


Mr. Remick said the trailers would only be parked by the loading bays or within the building, or under the roofline of the T-sheds occasionally.


Mr. Bautz asked if Kuiken owns their own tractor trailers.


Mr. Kuiken stated we own and operate a number of tractor trailers.  They do come to the site to be unloaded and to leave.  The equipment will be parked there overnight at times, and will move around on the site.  Any trailers would stay in the loading bay or within the buildings. 


Mr. Rilee said we could designate an area on the site where the trailers could be parked.


Mr. Meyer stated he has noticed that at the Gemini facility, there are tractors all over the property.


Mr. Kuiken said predominantly what we have is flatbed trailers.  We would keep them within the building or parked at the loading dock area or under a T-shed.


Mr. Stern said Horseshoe Lake is a community center with weekend activity when you would have vehicles parked throughout the site.  It would be better if there was a designated area where they could be parked.


Mr. Remick stated he will note that on the plans.


Mr. Remick stated a variance is required for the number of parking spaces – 44 proposed, 80 required.  Testimony has been given by Mr. Kuiken regarding the parking needs.


-Variance is required from maximum light mounting height.  22 feet and 18 feet proposed. – will describe further


-Variance required for disturbance of steep slopes, which are predominantly manmade on site.  The disturbance will be minimal and won’t create any runoff or erosion issues.


Sheet 2 of the Site Plan shows the existing conditions – This had been a lumberyard for a number of years.  After the fire, it continued to operate on site with a temporary trailer.  The site has been reopened and is being operated on a temporary certificate of occupancy by Mr. Kuiken.  There are 3 structures on site – two T-sheds, and 2 buildings that are a framed garage and a frame shed.  There is ground cover on site – millings, asphalt paving, concrete, some grass, and some limited areas of vegetation.  The site has a narrow entranceway about 150 feet long along Route 10.  The existing driveway entrance has an island in accordance with the DOT access. The site is highly encumbered with wetland pockets along the property lines.  The wetlands were created by drainage piped into it from Route 10.  Horseshoe Lake is also adjacent to the site which is a C-1 Waters designation.  The runoff from the Kuiken Brothers site is not tributary to Horseshoe Lake.   We discussed with DEP whether the buffer regulation would apply.  The special resource water regulations are in effect.  We discussed what we could do within the 150 foot buffer area. This is a redevelopment site, and the DEP states for a wetland buffer you can apply for a redevelopment waiver for substantially disturbed areas.  That would apply to any non-vegetated area.  The site has a main drainage divide through the center. 


Mr. Rilee asked if the redevelopment waiver was applied for on the Horseshoe Lake side as well.


Mr. Remick said yes.  We are confident what we are proposing will be approved.


Mr. Rilee asked if the existing T-sheds are the same height as those proposed.


Mr. Remick said he does not know the height.  They are similar.  We will clarify that for the next hearing.


Mr. Rilee said he has concern about the waiver being granted on the Horseshoe Lake side.  We have had some issues regarding runoff that hurt the quality of the lake.


Mr. Remick said the site slopes gently from the center to the north and south and some to the wetlands ditch to the east of the site.  The northern drainage sheetflows into the wetland ditch.  The top of the bank of Horseshoe Lake varies.  It is about 1 ½ to 2’ higher than the drainage swale on the Kuiken site.  All runoff is intercepted before it reaches the property line and will flow into the existing culvert as it does today.


Mr. Zoschak asked if anything will be done to mitigate any more drainage coming off the new impervious cover into the swale.


Mr. Remick said we are doing a number of things that will be addressed further. 


Mr. Remick said sheet 3 of the plans shows steep slopes.  It shows the approximate limit of disturbance.  The two main areas are adjacent to the existing residences, and adjacent to the wetland ditch.  Mr. Remick described sheet 3 showing the proposed main warehouse drive thru area.  The building is about 266 feet along the northern edge; 346 feet adjacent to the residences to the west.  The structure will be at least 103.5 feet from the property boundary at the northerly portion and 50.4 feet from the property line adjacent to the residences.  Towards the south, it will be a minimum of 56 feet with the southerly boundary.  It is then about 156 feet from the southerly-most boundary adjacent to Horseshoe Lake.  The existing driveway will be maintained.  The driveway does taper down to 22.4 feet in one portion.  At the end of the main entrance drive is the guard house.  All vehicles entering the site will stop at the guard house and will be directed where to go on site.  When they leave the site they will be required to stop at the guard house before exiting.  A variance is requested for the location of the guard house in the front yard.  Going into the site is a parking area to the west that will be curbed in a saw-toothed pattern to allow for drainage.  This parking will generally be for employees.  The spaces right in front of the showroom are anticipated to be what is used by customers.  There is not much customer activity anticipated.  A sidewalk is provided along the north side of the building leading to a crosswalk and leading to the main sidewalk.  There is a fire access lane to be constructed of grass pavers.  Mr. Stern requested it be delineated with stakes, and we agree to that.  Along the front of the building are the entrance and exit to the drive thru area.  The loading dock area is a depressed area with one door at grade and the rest will be 4 feet below the finished floor elevation.  Further to the south is the recycling/refuse area.  The outdoor storage area is shown in a hatched pattern.  The lumber stacks shown are typical areas where storage, staging, loading and unloading of product could occur.  They will not be continuous stacked areas of lumber.  It is schematically shown.  If there was lumber permanently stacked there it would inhibit the loading zones.  From an operational standpoint, this is designed to accommodate smaller trucks here, and tractor trailers. They will not permanently stack product where they can’t gain access to the building.


Mr. Rilee stated if it is true you don’t need that much storage area, can some of it be eliminated, particularly along the Horseshoe Lake area?


Mr. Remick stated we do need it, but they won’t be contiguous stacks.  The lumber is different lengths, and there is a variety of products. 


Mr. Rilee said he wants to know if the amount of outdoor storage could be reduced.


Mr. Remick said they want to use the property to the maximum practical while keeping in mind the concerns of the neighboring properties.


Mr. Remick said there are 3 T-shed structures proposed.  They are centrally supported with a canopy overhang on either side.   The ends are closed.  Past the T-sheds is another lumber stack area that would most likely be used as a staging area for rail deliveries.  There is an existing railroad spur.  We would be bending it slightly more to the west to give them greater length and accessibility.  Mr. Stern asked if additional gravel could be removed there.  I have been told the area of gravel will be utilized for vehicles traveling over the tracks and to the far side.  There will be no permanent storage along that gravel area. 


Mr. Stern said that comment was regarding the terminus of the relocated track.


Mr. Remick stated I was told when you are unloading a 40 ft. piece of lumber, you may have to pass another vehicle, so they do need the 80 feet. 


Mr. Remick stated there is an additional outdoor storage area as you complete the loop of the site.  Beyond that would be the main exit adjacent to the guard house.  The site is currently fenced with chain link fence.  That fence will be replaced with black vinyl-chain link fencing for the perimeter of the property.  We propose to replace the existing gates.  There was a request by Mr. Stern for a decorative aluminum fence adjacent to Horseshoe Lake.  During the discussion with the professionals, we suggested relocating the fence to 10 feet off the property line and put landscaping on the Horseshoe Lake side of the fence.  We would prefer having the chain link fence for security reasons.  The landscaping would cover the fence. We would be willing to discuss that further.


Mr. DeFillippo asked about the reason for the 35 foot buffer.


Mr. Remick stated there is a 50 foot vegetated area.  There is dense planting for 25 feet.  The reason is because of the topography.  The land slopes down there.  The property will continue to slope down from the residences to the building and we decided to concentrate the landscaping to the area that is higher in elevation.  We could provide foundation plantings as well. 


Mr. DeFillippo asked why the building can’t be further in.


Mr. Remick said it would affect the utility of the site. We are reducing pavement on site to bring us into conformity with the impervious coverage requirements.


Mr. DeFillippo asked why it is necessary to have the parking area extend beyond the back of the building.


Mr. Remick said to gain access to the fire lane.  We will provide substantial plantings in that area.


Mr. Behrens asked what the difference in height is at the slope in the 35 foot setback area.


Mr. Remick said moving the building location would not change the elevation.  It is where the landscaping is provided that would be affected.  We do have the 35 feet, but we put the plantings where they would be the most effective.


Mr. Stern said the buffer is from the parking lot to the fire lane.  It is a variance, and they would need to address mitigation.  Sometimes you can meet buffering beyond dimensions.


Mr. Remick stated we would look at mitigation, such as plantings on the residential properties or supplemental landscaping in other areas.


Mr. Ferriero said I think the buffer is not between the property line and the building, it is between the property line and the fire lane.




Mr. Remick said we did try to take a global look at the site because of the environmental issues on the site.  We did see that 25 foot area would be the most effective landscape screening.  They have reduced the impervious coverage to what the ordinance allows. 


Mr. Meyer said this will be addressed further at the next hearing.


PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Remick.


No one stepped forward.




Mr. Rittie requested a special meeting.


The application was carried to 5/16/07, and the Board will discuss the possibility of a special meeting if needed at that time.




Mr. Meyer stated we have received resumes for 3 traffic consultants.




Mr. Zoschak made a motion to hire Harold Maltz/Hamal Associates.  Mr. Rilee seconded.


A voice vote approved.


The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:15 p.m.


                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Board Secretary