Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
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 dated at 7:30 p.m. with
Vice Chairman Larry Sweeney presiding. After a salute to the flag, Mr. Sweeney
read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry
Sweeney, Steven Alford, Charles Bautz, Michael Shadiack, Richard Zoschak, Jim
Rilee, Joseph Schwab.
ABSENT: Scott Meyer, Gary
Behrens, Robert DeFillippo.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, John Hansen for Paul Ferriero, Russell Stern.
Also present: Lorraine Mullen
for Dolores DeMasi.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney,
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Schwab seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Rilee, abstain; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Bautz,
abstain; Mr. Sweeney, yes.
M-10-06 – SCOTT CONSTRUCTION –
SUBDIVISION FOR 2 LOTS LOCATED ON HILLSIDE AVE. BLOCK 5203, LOT 50 IN R-3 ZONE
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
Denied: April 18, 2007
Memorialized: May 2, 2007
THE MATTER OF SCOTT CONSTRUCTION
5203, LOT 50
Scott Construction (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to
the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning
Board") for minor subdivision approval on April 5, 2006; and
Applicant has failed to appear for a number of scheduled hearings and/or has
failed to submit required information and/or plan revisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby deny the
application without prejudice.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Bautz seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr.
PBA-07-09 – JOHN & ROSEMARIE DOONAN – CONCEPT
APPLICATION FOR 2 LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON EYLAND AVE. BLOCK 3708, LOT 14 IN
John Doonan was present. He
stated he owns property on Eyland Avenue. There is a single family house
there, and I am looking to keep the present house and subdivide the lot to
build another home on the second lot. I would need a variance for lot frontage
on both lots. I would like to keep the barn on the existing lot with the
existing home and obtain a lot area variance on the first lot.
Mr. Stern stated a lot width
variance would be required as well as lot frontage. There is also a question
regarding sideyard setback for the side where the porch is located. A variance
may also be required for impervious coverage. For the new home parcel, a
variance will be required for lot width and lot frontage.
Mr. Zoschak asked if that would
be creating a flag lot.
Mr. Stern said they are not
expressively permitted in the R-3 zone. This would not trigger a use variance.
Mr. Rilee said normally we don’t
approve variance for half the frontage required.
Mr. Doonan said we are expecting
our first child. My choices are to seek this subdivision and build another
house. We are in an historic zone, and I would like to keep the house in the
general shape it is in. I like the area, and the characteristic of the
neighborhood is that 16 of the 27 houses are substandard with less than 200
feet of frontage. In the back, all the areas except for the northernmost
boundary are natural borders with trees and bushes. I plan on keeping that and
even reinforcing it. It wouldn’t impact the neighborhood visually or
Mr. Alford asked if Mr. Doonan
would be looking to sell the current home.
Mr. Doonan said he would think
about selling it and possibly keeping it within the family. I do not want to
rent it out.
Mr. Zoschak said the Board
doesn’t normally grant variances such as this. The town is trying to avoid
infill housing. To get all these variances you would need to show a hardship
and I don’t see a hardship. There is plenty of room to expand the existing
house. Also, that would be a long driveway.
Mr. Doonan said if he took the
porch off, and added the barn, he would just need the lot width variance.
Mr. Stern said you may still
require a variance for impervious coverage.
Mr. Rilee said there are a lot of
Mr. Sweeney said the Board does
not generally grant substandard lots.
PBA-07-13 – MARK EAST (WALGREENS) SOIL APPLICATION
LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 601, LOTS 27-31 IN A B-2 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented
Grayson Murray, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in. He stated the application is for a soil moving
permit. There is a total cut to fill operation of 4,863 cy. The dump site
will be in Mount Hope. The route of travel will be Route 46 to Howard Blvd. to
Rt. 80. The number of trucks for earth export will be 27 trucks. Welding
quarries will be utilized for stone and sand material during construction. The
actual quantity to be exported is 450 cy. We have received Mr. Ferriero’s
report, and agree to the hours of operation required 8-4 weekdays and Saturdays
8-12. There will be about 2 to 3 truckloads per day for about two months. We
concur with all other items in Mr. Ferriero’s report.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the application subject to the hours of operation and route of travel
and all items discussed. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes.
Mr. Kron said the preliminary
approval was conditional on the applicant receiving a TWA for the sewer
connection. When the applicant started the process to get the sewer
connection, it was found that with the original easement for the sewer line on
Block 6601, Lot 32, there was no recorded sewer easement. We were able to get
the actual easement for the sewer line that runs along that property. As a
result, we have been delayed about 90 to 120 days. We have gotten an agreement
from GA Development and BJs, and have submitted the TWA to the town to be
approved and sent to DEP. It will take about 45 to 60 days after that to get
the TWA. We would like to request that the Board consider amending the
resolution to allow us to proceed with construction at our own peril.
Mr. Germinario said if it is a
significant change to the resolution it requires public notice and a hearing.
Mr. Rilee suggested the applicant
submit a letter and we can be prepared to address it at the next hearing.
Mr. Kron agreed.
Mr. Germinario will review the
resolution and contact the applicant in the meantime.
It was determined this matter
will be on the agenda for the 5/16/07 meeting.
PBA-07-06 - ROXBURY 2002 LLC, PHILIPS – FINAL MAJOR SITE
PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON ROUTE 46, BLOCK 9501, LOT 9 IN LI/OR ZONE
Grayson Murray, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in.
Mr. Kron stated this application
is for final site plan approval. We have received a report from Paul Ferriero
dated 4/24/07 and will address those items that are considered Public Health
and Safety concerns.
Mr. Murray stated item 58 has
been completed. There is a potential problem with item 42 – the porous
pavement has deteriorated, and we need to determine the scope of the repair
work that is needed.
Mr. Hansen recommended that we
meet out there within the township engineer and applicant’s engineer to see
what kind of repair work and maintenance needs to be done.
Mr. Bautz asked for comment from
the applicant’s engineer.
Mr. Murray stated we would agree
to meet in the field. I did see that some of the aggregate has come loose. I
think we need to meet at the site to discuss this and to have a condition that
this concern be satisfied.
Mr. Hansen said the extent of
what needs to be done is not clear at this time. The worst case scenario is
that it has to be taken out and redone.
Mr. Bautz asked why this hasn’t
been addressed before coming to the Board.
Mr. Murray said it is not clear
the severity of the problem.
Mr. Kron asked that the Board
consider authorizing Mr. Germinario to prepare a resolution before the next
Mr. Zoschak said he is not
comfortable with that as Mr. Hansen said it is not clear what has to be done
until after they meet at the site.
Mr. Rilee said he is not in favor
of preparing the resolution in advance of the approval. I would also see the
list of outstanding items reduced for the next hearing.
Mr. Hansen said item 4 discusses
trees that were cut down along Route 46. What will be done with that area? It
is somewhat close to the wetlands there.
Mr. Murray stated that is at the
intersection of the driveway and Rt. 46. It is within the regulated area of
the buffer. DEP requested that be done for visibility of the sign and they
understood it would be acceptable. Some stumps remain and some are exposed.
We can cut the stumps down flush with grade, but can’t disturb soil in that
Mr. Hansen asked if there was a
permit from DEP.
Mr. Murray said DEP came to the
site and accepted the activity. We do have documentation.
Mr. Hansen said that
documentation should be submitted to the Board.
Mr. Rilee said permission should
also have been obtained from the town.
Mr. Hansen stated another issue
is the detention basin. There is rip-rap that was placed on the wall of the
basin to handle soil erosion control problems. They feel it is necessary to
remain. I don’t dispute that, but the Board should be aware that is what it
will look like.
Mr. Murray said the rip-rap needs
Mr. Stern suggested additional
evergreens in the vicinity and maybe more plantings along Route 46 to block off
the view to the basin.
Mr. Germinario stated he reviewed
the easements that were required.
Mr. Kron said all the easements
were approved by Mr. Bucco.
Mr. Stern said there was an issue
regarding the septic treatment facility. Originally the two tanks were
slightly above grade. A lot more above ground structures went in and they are
within view from the parking area. It is up to the Board whether that area
should be screened further.
Mr. Murray said there is a slight
change in elevation. The maintenance shed was shown and was over the setback
line. We had to relocated it to avoid a variance. When we moved it and
screened it, the separation distance between the shed and the equipment exceed
the distance needed for the equipment to comply with the electrical code. This
is significantly out of public view from the roadway.
Mr. Stern stated it is internal
to the site, but I think the screening should be enhanced somewhat.
Mr. Zoschak suggested the
plantings be left up to Mr. Stern’s judgment.
The applicant agreed.
Mr. Rilee stated he is more
concerned with the view of the front of the site. I would suggest Mr. Stern go
out and come up with suggestions.
The application was carried to
Attorney Larry Kron represented
the applicant. He said the Board had heard an application on this lot and an
adjoining lot two years ago. That applicant never went to completion and the
Board denied it with prejudice. This application is different as the building
footprint has been reduced from 1,980 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq ft. out of the steep
slopes area; the number of bedrooms has been reduced from 4 to 3; there is a
reduction of the building area; redesigned septic system; impervious coverage
has been reduced from 3,220 sq. ft. to 2,770 sq. ft.; stormwater management
facility is now in the front yard, not in the rear yard. I don’t believe there
is any issue of res judicata that would apply.
Mr. Germinario stated he finds
there are significant differences between this application and the previous
application. Measures have been taken in this application to reduce the slope
disturbance, and I agree res judicata does not preclude moving forward
with consideration of this application.
Mr. Stern said one representation
is that the size of the home has been significantly reduced. Would it be
reasonable for the Board to limit the size of the building?
Mr. Germinario said yes.
Mr. Rilee stated it was not
denied strictly on the steep slope ordinance. There were significant drainage
issues on this application as well.
Mr. Germinario stated that is
correct, but if there is a substantial change to one of the factors, res
judicata does not apply.
Mr. Kron said the prior
application also involved Lot 14. Apparently Lot 14 is now owned by the
township. I did offer to purchase that lot on behalf of the applicant, and the
township would not sell the lot to us.
Mr. Kron submitted a copy of that
correspondence dated 3/21/06 to the Township Manager (marked A-1); and a letter
dated 4/4/06 from Cris Raths to Mr. Kron advising that the Mayor and Council
have always taken a position not to sell lots when combined with other lots to
facilitate construction (marked A-2); and a letter dated 5/1/06 indicating the
Council has determined that the sale of Block 9707, Lot 14 is not in the best
interest of the Township (marked A-3).
Mr. Kron said part of Roosevelt
Way is serviced by Mt. Arlington in an agreement with Roxbury. There was a
letter dated 5/1/07 from the Mayor of Mt. Arlington indicating the Borough of
Mt. Arlington recently reconstructed Roosevelt Way to a 16 foot wide paved
street that provides more than adequate space for residents, emergency
responders and maintenance personnel. It is requested that Roxbury recognize
the merits of the applicant installing a turnaround for public use. The
Borough is in full support of the application with the understanding that a
turnaround area will be provided. The Borough will also commit to plowing the
new section of the roadway to access the turnaround area. This section of
Roxbury Township will be part of the shared services arrangement that the towns
Anthony Gallerano, engineer for
applicant, was sworn in and gave his educational and professional background
and was accepted by the Board.
Mr. Gallerano described the
project. He referred to a color rendering of the plot plan. (marked A-4)
revised 11/29/06. He stated the lot is on the unimproved portion of Roosevelt
Way. The proposal is for a single family dwelling with improvements to
Roosevelt Way. The property is 15,220 sq. ft and is in the R-3 district.
The property conforms with all bulk requirements, except for a variance request
for steep slopes.
Mr. Kron asked about the road and
Mr. Kobylarz’ report.
Mr. Gallerano stated we thought
it would be appropriate to maintain the existing width of the road. Presently
Roosevelt Way is paved and is 16 feet wide. The area in front of the lot is
unimproved. The 16’ paved road would be an improvement over what exists.
Right now there is no means to turn around at the end of Roosevelt Way, and the
hammerhead will provide adequate turnaround space. That is acceptable to Mt.
Arlington. The applicant is agreeable to give an easement to the town for the
purpose of the hammerhead turn. Currently the existing portion of the road is
not curbed and we don’t see a benefit to extending it here and are asking for a
Mr. Hansen asked if there is a
portion of Roosevelt that is curbed.
Mr. Gallerano said there is a
portion that is bituminous curbed.
Regarding Item #3 in Mr.
Kobylarz’s report, Mr. Gallerano said initially 3 seepage pits were proposed on
the property. We now show a redesign of the drainage system. We are now
proposing to maintain seepage pits for onsite runoff, and to install a recharge
system within the Roosevelt Way right-of-way. An inlet would be installed at
the end of Roosevelt Way, then there would be a recharge pipe extending beyond
that to a control structure where the road makes a 90 degree turn. We would
then install an overflow pipe that would go along the remainder of the
unimproved portion of Roosevelt Way to a scour hole. The pipe would provide
for overflow in case of an emergency. The recharge system would accommodate
100% of the runoff, as would the seepage pits on site. We would also install
an overflow pipe into the seepage pits into the recharge system.
Mr. Bautz asked if the existing
properties have overflow on them now.
Mr. Gallerano said all the runoff
from the site currently drains in a westerly direction. Our system would
accommodate any increase in runoff.
Mr. Zoschak asked if this system
would be mitigating any of the existing drainage situation?
Mr. Gallerano said yes, we would
direct all the roof leaders to the seepage pits.
Mr. Kron asked Mr. Gallerano to
discuss the steep slopes variance.
Mr. Gallerano said the topography
is such that in order to build on the property, there will be disturbance to
the slopes. We have tried to minimize the disturbance. The house is a modest
size house at 1,200 sq. ft. The septic system uses trenches instead of beds.
The location of the house and improvements is such that it keeps it in the
lesser slopes. This existing condition presents a hardship to the applicant.
Mr. Kron asked about the variance for building on an unimproved/unapproved
Mr. Gallerano stated this
property fronts on the unimproved portion of Roosevelt Way. We have designed
the road with adequate access for emergency vehicles. The hammerhead provides
a turnaround and helps with snow plowing. This will be a substantial
improvement. There will be no negative impact on adjoining properties because
of the construction of this road.
Mr. Zoschak said the previous
application had a cul-de-sac. What is there to prevent them from parking cars
in the hammerhead?
Mr. Kron said there will be
language in the easement to prohibit parking there.
Mr. Zoschak said that won’t stop
people from parking there.
Mr. Kron said we could grant a
Mr. Gallerano said there would be
a deed restriction to prohibit parking there. It is no different from people
parking in a cul-de-ac. It is an enforcement situation.
It was agreed it is a hard thing
to enforce. Mr. Rilee stated this is a dead end street, and I don’t believe it
will be a problem.
Mr. Gallerano said there is
adequate parking for 4 cars outside the hammerhead in the driveway in addition
to the garage.
Mr. Kron said we would agree to
accommodate the Board.
Mr. Gallerano said he believes
that this would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. We are asking
for a waiver from RSIS for the length of the roadway. We feel the access we
are providing is adequate. We are also asking for waivers from curbs,
sidewalks, and street trees to be consistent with what is there presently.
Mr. Gallerano stated we are also
asking for a waiver from the setback requirement for the wall between the
subject property and Lot 3. That wall belongs to the owners of Lot 3 and
encroaches on the subject property. We moved that wall back to the property
line to eliminate the encroachment.
There was a 5 minute recess at
Mr. Kron asked if a fire truck
can currently turn around on that street.
Mr. Gallerano said no.
Originally we were showing a dedication for a partial cul-de-sac. The
hammerhead was introduced by the planner and engineer. We did not include that
area in the calculations for steep slopes. If we eliminate that dedication,
and include that area in the calculations, it will lower the percentage of
disturbance of steep slopes. Therefore, the actual percentages will drop.
There is an added benefit by not constructing a partial cul-de-sac. There
would be less pavement, less runoff, less disturbance. As a result of this
change, the project is a better project.
Mr. Germinario said Mr. Kobylarz
indicates snow plows will push the snow from Roosevelt Way and deposit it at
the end of the road which would block the storm drain and exacerbate drainage
Mr. Gallerano said the storm
drain is at the end of the road. The goal when you plow is to free up the
Mr. Zoschak said that doesn’t
happen in reality.
Mr. Gallerano said the idea is to
push it off the road and to not block the storm drain. There is adequate space
to push the snow towards the end of Roosevelt Way.
Mr. Stern said the guard rail at
the end would inhibit the snow from going off the road.
Mr. Gallerano said the snow would
go over the top of the guard rail.
Robert O’Donnell was sworn in. He
said he is a principal in this application and is a builder. He described the
proposed house. He said it is a 1,200 sq. ft. house including the garage, 3
bedrooms, a half-basement in the front. The house is in keeping with the
area. It is not very large. The first floor plan shows stairs going down. We
are not planning any exterior access from the basement. We know we have to be
25 feet from the septic trenches for a full basement and we are trying to keep
the basement toward the front of the building for that reason. The exposed building
foundation will be cement. We would like to put a deck on the house, but we
haven’t addressed that yet. The runoff will be collected by seepage pits.
Mr. Zoschak said he would like to
get input from the Fire Official on the fire truck question.
Mr. Rilee stated he would also
like input on drainage at the next hearing.
Judith Kracht stepped forward.
She said she has questions on the water there. We run the water for 10 minutes
and it goes away. I have written my concerns down and I would like to put my
concerns and questions on the record tonight. I am on Lot 16. This house is
placed in my backyard. Where is my privacy? My house sits down from the
road. Will this road be done properly so that drainage does not come onto my
property? As to the hammerhead turn, how can you force people to let cars turn
around in their driveway? There are no police there to give tickets. This is
a very environmentally sensitive area.
Mr. Gallerano said we have a
permit for the septic system from the Health Department. A permit will have to
be obtained for the well also.
Ms. Kracht asked where the well
Mr. Gallerano said it is in the
Ms. Kracht stated that is in
direct line with my well.
Mr. Germinario said when they
permit wells, they do a drawdown test. Is that true?
Mr. Gallerano said there are
regulations on separations between wells and septic systems.
Ms. Kracht asked how electricity
will go to the site?
Mr. Gallerano stated this issue
is for the power company. I believe if the existing power is overhead, the
utility company can run it overhead.
Ms. Kracht said the only
electrical pole is in front of Lot 18 in Mt. Arlington.
Mr. Gallerano said that issue is
for the power company.
Mr. Kracht asked if the road will
be completed before the house is started, and will access to my house be
blocked by flatbed trucks? Also will this developer repair damage to Roosevelt
Way from construction vehicles? I would request that, if approved, my
property, as well as my neighbor’s will not be blocked before or after
construction. I would like to see a resolution stating that at no time will my
property or surrounding properties be blocked or denied access. My main
concern is the water and I hope the Board takes that into consideration. There
is not enough water to supply another house.
Mr. Kron did not object to
marking Ms. Kracht’s concerns in to the record. (marked O-1)
Mr. Zoschak asked where the snow
Ms. Kracht said she owns the
house, but her son lives there.
John Kracht was sworn in. He
stated he lives there and the snow goes in the street. Mt. Arlington does the
plowing and the garbage pickup. We don’t have a driveway and we park on the
street. There is also an access road. Regarding plowing, right now than can
turnaround in one driveway. Mt. Arlington does the snow plowing and garbage
pick up. The children go to Roxbury schools.
Mr. Bautz asked if there is any
runoff from the street onto the property.
Mr. Kracht said yes, but it is
better now that they have redone the road.
Mr. Rilee asked about a
turnaround area on the Mt. Arlington section.
Mr. Kracht said there is a small
turnaround that they made when they were paving the road. Trucks back down the
road after garbage pickups, and delivery trucks.
Ms. Kracht said this house has
been in our family for over 60 years. We park at the top of the hill and walk
down a pathway to the house.
Mr. Schultz asked if there are
environmental issues with that lot.
Ms. Kracht asked if there is an
engineering report ensuring that the current water problem will not get worse.
Has the Board considered the water impact on neighborhood if additional lots
are open to development? We all have problems with water. My well is down 425
feet and if we run the water for more than 10 minutes the flow decreases
drastically. There is just so much water in this mountaintop. It is an
environmentally sensitive area. To further compromise it would be a detriment
to the public good. Has the applicant proven to the Board that there will be
no disruption of our water after the construction? It is such a large house.
It has 3 bathrooms, a laundry room and a kitchen, and a big green lawn
Mr. Hansen said our report dated
4/20/07 has the same concerns, and additional grading details are needed in
front of Lot 16 to ensure that the road design can be done without an adverse
impact on the dwelling. The plans need to be finalized.
Mike Menendez, 22 Harriet Way,
was sworn in. I have concerns about the water issue. I have already had to
drill my well down. I want to make sure them building just above me won’t
affect my water. Also, I am not sure how the runoff will affect me. Right now
there are deer and animals there, and I am concerned that will be affected as
Mr. Gallerano stated the
stormwater will be addressed. As to the well, that is under the jurisdiction
of the Health Department and Fire Official.
Mr. Menendez asked if the Health
Department is aware of the water issues.
Mr. Hansen said there would be a
State well permit application to the DEP, and if it is issued they will drill
the well. The only way to determine if there is adequate water is to hire a
No one else stepped forward.
The application was carried to
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 9:45 p.m.
A. DeMasi, Board Secretary