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

A regular meeting of the Planning Board 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, Joseph Schwab, Gary Behrens, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Jim Rilee, Steven Alford, Robert DeFillippo, Robert Shultz.


ABSENT:  Charles Bautz, Larry Sweeney.


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


Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary


Minutes of 4/18/07


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


Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schultz, abstain; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Meyer, abstain.






                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                         MAJOR SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT



Pursuant to Chapter XVII of the General Ordinances of the Township of Roxbury, Article 17-1 et seq. (the "Ordinance), the Roxbury Township Planning Board (the "Board"), having conducted a public hearing with public notice pursuant to the Ordinance, does hereby grant to the Applicant identified herein a Major Soil Permit, subject to the terms and conditions enumerated herein below.


1.  Applicant/Permittee:  Mark East Inc./Walgreens


2.  Application Number:                                      PBA-07-13


3.  Property Identification:  Block 6601, Lot 27.01 & 31


4.  Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s):  Preliminary Site Plan



5.  Major Soil Permit Approval Date5/2/07


6.  Effective Date5/2/07


7.  Findings of Fact:


A.            The Board has received an Application consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-6, and the Applicant has paid the application fee pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-7.1.


B.            Proof of adequate notice of this Application, pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-6.5, has been furnished to the Board.


C.            A public hearing was conducted, in accordance with the Ordinance, and with opportunity for comment by interested members of the public, on the following date(s):  5/2/07


D.            In granting this Permit, the Board has considered the factors enumerated in Section 17-6.6 of the Ordinance.  The Board has received and considered the following documents in connection with this Application: (1) soil moving application dated 6/3/05; (2) soil movements stockpile plan by Bohler Engineering revised to 2/15/06; (3) earthwork calculations by Bohler Engineering dated 6/6/05; and (4) reports of the Planning Board Engineer, Paul Ferriero, PE, dated 4/24/07.


E.             The Board has made the following additional findings of fact: 


1.             The Applicant intends to export 450 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil and rock.


2.             The Applicant proposes to relocate within the site 5,945 c.y. of soil.


3.             The Applicant intends to export fill to Mt. Hope quarry.


4.             The route of truck travel from Applicant's site to the disposal site will be:  Route 46 to Howard Blvd. to Route 80 out of the Township. 


5.             The Applicant has agreed to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Planning Board Engineer dated 4/24/07.


6.             Pursuant to Section 17-9d of the Ordinance, the Board finds that circumstances warrant the restriction of the hours of soil moving operations to 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays (with such operations prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays).


7.             Pursuant to Section 17-17 of the Ordinance, the Board finds that strict application of the following Ordinance provisions would impose hardship and hereby grants waivers with respect thereto:  N/A


8.             Conditions of Approval:  This Permit is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 


A.            Applicant shall post a performance guarantee, consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-8, in an amount indicated in Subparagraph H.5 below, as determined by the Board Engineer based on quantity of soil moved at the rate of 15 cents per cubic yard of material moved.


B.            This Permit shall remain valid for a term of one year from the Effective Date specified in Paragraph 6 hereinabove, subject to extension thereafter in accordance with Ordinance Section 17-9c.


C.            The Applicant shall pay the engineering review and inspection fees as required in Ordinance Section 17-7.3.


D.            This approval shall not become effective until:  (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes and assessments due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all conditions of the preliminary site plan approval have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer.


E.             Applicant shall comply with:  (i) "Hours of Operation" established pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-9d, as modified pursuant to paragraph 7.E.6 hereinabove; (ii) "General Terms and Conditions of Operation" stipulated in Section 17-10; (iii) "Topsoil Restrictions", pursuant to Section 17-11; (iv) "Depth of Excavation", pursuant to Section 17-12; and (v) "Final Grades", pursuant to Section 17-13.


F.             Applicant grants to the Township Engineer, and/or his duly authorized agents, the right of entry to the property to conduct inspections to determine compliance with this Permit.


G.            This approval is subject to all outside agency review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.


H.            This Permit is subject to the following additional terms and conditions: 


1.             All fill will be exported from Applicant's site to Mt. Hope quarry.


2.             The route of truck travel from Applicant's site to the disposal site shall be:  Route 46 to Howard Blvd. to Route 80 out of the Township.


3.             The Erosion Control Plan shall be modified to indicate the following note: 


"Notwithstanding the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the Applicant shall implement all measures needed to satisfactorily control erosion, dust, and sediment transport as may be reasonably determined by the Township Engineer during construction."


4.             Applicant shall post fees as follows:


Section 17-7.1  Application Fee - $250.00

Section 17-7.2  Soil Moving Fee - $891.75 ($0.15/cy

times 5,945 cy)

Section 17-7.3  Engineering Inspection Fees pursuant

to Section 13-2.404 of the

Township Ordinances


5.             Per Section 17-8 of the Ordinance, Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $3,000.00.


6.             Applicant shall place hay bales on the site to supplement planned silt fencing for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer.


7.             In accordance with Ordinance Sections 17-6.1(t) and 17-6.4, the Applicant shall stake out interior improvements with appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer, and a professional land surveyor shall stake out lot corners and appropriate points on line.


The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate recitation of the action taken by the Planning Board on the approval date designated hereinabove.



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


Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes.




Mr. Germinario explained when we passed the Villages resolution in August of last year, there were deed restrictions on the open space.  That was prior to discussions with the Township.  In the course of negotiating the contract of sale, some different conditions were attached to the use of the open space.  This resolution modifies condition 5 in order to make the deed restrictions consistent with what is in the contract for the purchase of the open space project.


                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                                   RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION


 Decided:  March 7, 2007

 Memorialized:  March 21, 2007




BLOCK 11201, LOTS 1-3; BLOCK 10101, LOT 34



WHEREAS, Wellfleet Developers, Inc./Villages at Roxbury (hereinafter the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter the "Board") for amended preliminary and final major subdivision approval on 10/10/06; and


WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete by the Board, and a public hearing was held on 3/7/07; 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 179.54 acres located in the R-6 Planned Residential District. On July 5, 2006 the Applicant received amended preliminary major subdivision approval (memorialized August 2, 2006), for 179 single-family lots. Through negotiations with the Township, the Applicant now seeks amended preliminary and final subdivision approval to subdivide a 33.969 acre parcel, to be purchased by the Township, and reconfigure the road layout for a reduced lot yield of 161 single family lots. Two lots along Williams Road, sixteen lots along cul-de-sac Roads ‘P’ and ‘Q’, Detention Basin ‘G’ and Roads ‘P’ and ‘Q’ will be eliminated.  The 33.969-acre parcel will be acquired by the Township with the assistance of a Morris County Preservation Trust Fund Grant. The Township and Applicant have drafted a contract of sale but have yet to execute the document.


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


            - Preliminary Major Subdivision Plans (161 lots),                       consisting of 124 pages, revised

                  through October 5, 2006, prepared by Robert J.              Foley, PE.

            - Preliminary Major Subdivision Plans (179 lots),                       consisting of 125 pages, revised

                  through October 25, 2006, prepared by Robert J.                   Foley, PE.

            - Final Plat (161 lots), consisting of eight sheets,              dated August 1, 2006, prepared by

                  Glen J. Lloyd, PLS.


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, P.P., dated 3/1/07

Paul Ferriero, P.E., dated 3/1/07


4.  In the course of the public hearings, the following exhibits were marked and are part of the hearing record:


A-1         161-Lot Site Layout

A-2         Sheet 10 of 119 for 179-lot layout,

                                revised 5/18/06

A-3         Road O Preliminary Plat


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


Susan Berninger, P.E., engineering expert


6.  The Board finds that this application is a benefit to the community and will result in more municipal open space lands and less density, less site disturbance, impervious coverage and infrastructure.  The Board also finds that the 161-lot subdivision plan represents a substantial improvement over the 179-lot plan, insofar as it requires less variance relief and better conforms to Ordinance requirements.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board does hereby approve the amended preliminary and final major subdivision approval, including bulk variances, 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 Board’s signature of the amended preliminary subdivision drawings and/or final subdivision plat:


1.  As a condition precedent to this 161-lot preliminary and final subdivision approval, a contract for the sale of the 33.969 acre parcel by the Applicant to the Township shall be executed.  The 179-lot plan approved by the August 21, 2006 Resolution shall remain in effect until the 33.969 acre parcel is conveyed to the Township, at which point this 161-lot approval shall supercede it.


2.  Prior to approval and signing of the amended preliminary subdivision plan or the final subdivision plat, the Board Engineer and the Township Planner shall certify that all applicable conditions of the August 2, 2006 Resolution have been fulfilled by the Applicant and a performance bond in an amount to be determined by the Board Engineer shall be posted.


                                3.  All conditions of approval previously set forth in the Resolution of August 2, 2006, shall remain in effect, unless modified herein.


                                4.  Since the only point of public access to the 33.969 acre Township open space parcel is from Williams Road, an access easement shall be provided from Village Boulevard to the open space parcel for maintenance and emergency purposes.


                                5.  On the open space parcel, the drawings depict an area reserved for JCP&L to accommodate the potential relocation of utility lines. All references and proposed easements for JCP&L that are located on the future municipal parcel, except for portions of the JCP&L easement that are not being relocated, shall be eliminated as the property is being acquired through a Morris County Preservation Trust Fund Grant for open space and recreation purposes. Necessary easements shall be located within the proposed single-family lots. Setback lines shall be adjusted accordingly to provide a 5-foot setback from the easement per Ordinance Section 13-8.205A.  Lot line adjustments to accommodate the relocated JCP&L easement may be administratively approved by the Township Planner to the extent they do not involve new variances.


                                6.  Pursuant to Condition 77 of the August 2, 2006 Resolution, the drawings shall note that overhead utility line in the vicinity of Road ‘O’ shall be placed underground, except where they cross open space areas and to the extent permitted by JCP&L.


                                7.  JCP&L has expressed an interest in locating a power substation on the property, but nothing is depicted on the plans at this time. Any proposal for a substation will require site plan approval wherein the Board can address planning issues, including buffering of adjoining properties.


                                8.  The development sign proposed at the Road ‘O’/Mansel Drive/Salmon Road intersection shall be removed.


                                9.  Building setbacks for lots on the easterly side of Road ‘O’ shall be depicted on sheet 2.


                                10.  Deed language for the easements must be provided for review and approval by the Board and Township Attorneys and the Board and Township Engineers.  Descriptions for these easements shall also be prepared for review.


                                11.  Prior to the signing of any maps, a performance bond must be posted.  An engineer’s estimate should be provided after the Resolution compliance review is completed.


                                12.  The engineer shall confirm that all outbound monuments for the tract are set.


                                13.  All lots shown on the index plan (sheet 2) shall show all setbacks.  The setback lines are missing from some of the lots on Road J and Road O.


                                14.  Since the modified plans results in the elimination of Basin G, the remnant “10’ wide berm” label shall be removed from page 22.


                                15.  The following changes shall be made to the Final Plat:


                                                (a)           The leader for Sight Easement E on sheet 3 shall be moved to be consistent with the easement location.


                                                (b)           Any references on the plans to resolutions shall include the date of the resolution.


                                                (c)           The text near the easement legend on Sheet 4 shall be moved to eliminate conflicts and permit legibility.  The maps shall be rechecked to eliminate all text conflicts.


                                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 3/7/07.


Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the resolution.  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. Schultz, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.


Discussion on Walgreens


Mr. Meyer stated the Board has received a letter from Mr. Kron regarding Walgreens.


Attorney Larry Kron was present and stated he had requested at the last meeting that the Township allow Walgreens to proceed with limited construction while waiting for issuance of the TWA.  In the process for applying for the TWA, it was determined there was a missing easement for the property in front of BJs.  There was no recorded easement.  I got that easement from the owner, and now the town is about to put through the TWA. We request that the Board allow us to commence limited construction as outlined in my letter to the Board.   We understand we would be doing it at our own risk. 


Mr. Germinario stated he looked at the preliminary resolution and there is no condition to forbid them from beginning construction as stated by Mr. Kron.  It can be done administratively by the Board, pending the TWA.  This would be at the applicant’s risk. 


Mr. Rilee stated his concern is that it is only at ground level.  I don’t want to see any framing done. 


Ms. DeMasi asked if they have to complete all the other items before they can get the permits.


Mr. Germinario said yes.  I believe all of those items have been addressed, except for administrative items.


Mr. Stern said the Township Engineer’s office is working on the TWA.


Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve limited construction as detailed in Mr. Kron’s letter of 5/3/07 and authorize Ms. DeMasi to advise the Construction Official accordingly, and subject to all other items agreed to. Mr. Zoschak seconded.


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






Virginia Grodeska, Alice Dufford’s daughter, was sworn in and said she has Power of Attorney for her mother.


Edward Secco, surveyor for the applicant, was sworn in.


Mr. Secco stated the lot is located on Righter Road.  The applicant proposes to subdivide it into two conforming lots.  The zone is R-3.  We show a conceptual dwelling on the vacant lot that would fit in the building envelope.  There are comments in the engineer and planner’s reports.  We also propose to dedicate land in Righter Road. 


Mr. Secco stated the intention is to keep the new lot in the family.


Mr. Stern stated two waivers are required from sidewalks and street trees.  I do recommend some trees.


Mr. Secco stated he will plant two trees where there is sufficient room.    We are using the existing drop curb.  We show the proposed contours on the conceptual dwelling.  I have a letter stating the lots will be 1.01 and 1.02.  The lot line revision fee is acceptable, and the pro rata share is acceptable.


Mr. Secco addressed Mr. Ferriero’s report:


Item 1 - will provide easement.  We can provide language for the easement.


Mr. Ferriero stated that is sufficient, and the ultimate owner of Lot 1.2 should have knowledge of that sewer line. 


Items 2 – 5 – agree, when it is determined what type of house is put in.


Mr. Ferriero stated a lot of it can be handled with a general note stating all items will be done prior to construction and soil logs should be done prior to signing of deeds.


Mr. Secco said that is acceptable.


Mr. Secco said all other items are acceptable.




No one stepped forward.




Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the application.  Mr. DeFillippo seconded.


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




Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.   He stated there was a short list of items to be done.  Mr. Murray will testify to the status of those items.  Also, a portion of the Mt. Laurel fee has already been paid and the rest will be paid tomorrow.


Mr. Meyer suggested the applicant address only the items that still need to be done.


Mr. Meyer, Mr. DeFillippo and Mr. Behrens indicated they have listened to the recording of the last meeting.


Grayson Murray, engineer for the applicant, was present.  He stated on Monday I met with Mr. Ferriero, Mr. Stern and Mr. Henry to walk the site and to focus on some of the specifics in the review letters.  I drafted a letter today identifying some of the key points of that meeting.  As of this afternoon, the public safety issue has been addressed, which is the depressions in the parking field and the depressions around the V-inlet.  We agree to clean up the gravel and remove it from the landscape beds and replace it with appropriate mulch.


Mr. Murray addressed Mr. Stern’s report updated 4/27/07, outstanding items:


Mr. Stern said we will assume that the items which are not addressed will be bonded.


Mr. Murray said that is correct.


Regarding screening – there is rip-rap on the basin slopes that wasn’t indicated on the plans but was required by Morris County Soils.  We propose that we work out a fair screening solution with Mr. Stern consisting of adding topsoil in the voids in the rip-rap and seeding that, and add evergreens along Rt. 46 at the appropriate spacing and staggering that satisfies Mr. Stern.


Mr. Rilee said the rip-rap is an issue, but there is also the issue of the screening of the building itself from Rt. 46.  I’m not sure that just putting trees on Rt. 46 would be enough.  I think there might be the ability to cut back some of the pavement to allow for some trees to also be put at the top.


Mr. Ferriero said there isn’t a lot of room there.  The most effective screening is close to Rt. 46.


Mr. Stern agreed.  I don’t see any opportunity for cutting off pavement there.  The most effective screening is trees along the roadway.



Mr. Nusbaum stated at the time we got our approval, there was testimony that as motorists travel westbound along Rt. 46 there isn’t much time to notice the building..  We still are willing to go along with some reasonable addition along the roadway.  I have driven by.  It is seldom that one even looks in that direction, but if you do, you will see a building there. 


Mr. Zoschak asked if Mr. Stern is suggesting a tree height.


Mr. Stern stated the evergreen trees would be 6 or 7 feet high, or somewhat larger in some places.  This landscape plan also has a number of shade trees. 


Mr. Meyer asked if the Board agrees to have the applicant work something out with Mr. Stern.


Mr. Rilee said as long as Mr. Stern understands we want significant planting, I would agree with that.


Mr. Nusbaum said we are willing to work with Mr. Stern on the plantings, and would like to get an approval tonight.


Mr. Germinario asked when the plantings would be done.


Mr. Murray said it would be bonded, and the plantings would be done by the end of September, but not between June 15 and the end of September, or by mid-October.


Item 24 – to be worked out with Mr. Stern

Item 27 – to be bonded and completed by July 1

Item 29 – to be bonded and completed by July 1

Item 36 – agreed – to be done by July 1

Item 48 – we request additional planting not be put there – to be worked out with Mr. Stern

Remaining items agreed to


Mr. Stern said regarding item 13, is there anything outstanding with Morris County Soil?


Mr. Murray said there is nothing.


Mr. Stern asked about the headwall at the westerly end of the Rt. 46 frontage.


Mr. Murray said the contractor removed some of the debris there, and I don’t think anything else needs to be done.


Mr. Murray addressed Mr. Ferriero’s report dated 4/24/07:


Mr. Murray stated all items have been addressed, except for item 42 – the work was completed today.  Everything else is either completed or acceptable. 


Mr. Ferriero said he would like to go out and verify that all items have been addressed.




No one stepped forward.




Mr. Zoschak made a motion to approve the application subject to all conditions and caveats mentioned this evening.  Mr. Rilee seconded and asked that the applicant try to address the screening.


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




Attorney Ted Einhorn represented the applicant.  He stated we have made some changes in the plan and would like the architect to testify to that.


Mr. Byrne described the architectural changes.  He stated the revised plans reflecting the warehouse changes were submitted to the Board.  We have enhanced the exterior elevation to the rear facing Eyland Avenue, and the side facing Horseshoe Lake.  We have done a continuation of some of the details on the other elevations. 


Mr. Byrne referred to an architectural rendering (marked A-6) showing the rear view of the building from Eyland Avenue and the rear facing Horseshoe Lake on the top.  There is also a rendering of the more direct view from the Horseshoe Lake building showing the back of the warehouse building and a 3-sided shed building that was added to the project to create some buffering of the lumber storage.


Mr. Zoschak asked if there will be plantings along the side of the 3-sided shed that faces Horseshoe Lake.


Mr. Byrne said yes.


Mr. Stern said they also committed to putting in a decorative steel fence that matches the Horseshoe Lake fence, as well as shrubs, and 2 tiers of landscaping between the fence and the building.  I think it is a good approach.


Mr. Byrne showed a rendering of the 3-sided shed from the opposite elevation (marked A-7).  It also shows an enhancement to the end walls of the T-sheds.


Mr. Byrne showed a rendering of a sight line (marked A-8) from a person standing on the second floor of the buildings across Eyland Avenue. The viewable portion of the building would be about 11 ft. 6 inches. 


Mr. Einhorn said questions were raised at the last hearing about the HVAC units.


Mr. Byrne said any of the penetrations we would need would be di minimus in scale, none of which exceed 12” x 12”. The compressors for air conditioning will be on the ground in front of the building.


Mr. Rilee asked if the sight line is at maturity of the planting.


Mr. Byrne said no, it is at the time of planting.


Mr. Zoschak asked if there will be any signage on the rear of the building.


Mr. Byrne said no.


Mr. Rilee said he still has concerns about the building height of 25 feet.


Mr. Byrne said at the fascia line, the height of the building is 22 feet. 


Adam Remick, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He referred to a colorized rendering of the landscape plan dated 5/4/07 (marked A-9).  He described the changes that have been made to the plans:


-addition of three-sided shed along the southerly boundary of the property

-addition of plantings directly behind the building and adjacent to the properties to the left.


Mr. Remick stated he spoke to Mr. Pellek, the Fire Official and discussed the need for a fire lane that was depicted around the building.  He did not feel it was beneficial in any way.  The building is fully sprinkled, and the fire connection point is at the front of the site.  He did not see any benefit or use for the fire lane.  We have removed the fire lane and are providing a grassed area there.  We didn’t increase the width of the landscape buffer; however, more plants are being proposed in that area.  We do have a groundwater recharge trench on the perimeter of the building, as a beneficial feature.  We feel the benefits of that outweigh the additional plantings that would be at a lower elevation.  We also are proposing a board-on-board fence along the three boundaries along the westerly portion of the property adjacent to the residences on East Mapledale Avenue and Eyland Avenue.  We added one additional parking space at the front of the building.   We also added the condensers for the air conditioners in the planting islands separating the drive thru area and the office area.  We did also provide additional landscaping at the driveway entrance and at the front area of the project.


Mr. Rilee asked if the fence along the Horseshoe Lake side is on the property line.


Mr. Remick said it is set back somewhat.  We intend to pull it 10 feet off the property line, and we will plant some shrubs along the Horseshoe Lake side of the property.


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


Mr. Einhorn stated we have reviewed Mr. Stern’s updated report of 5/8/07.


Mr. Remick addressed some items in Mr. Stern’s report:


Item 2.1 – agree to comply with light fixture height, except for the 22 ft. mounting height within the T-shed canopy and for the lights mounted to the T-sheds.  Mr. Stern had no objection.


Mr. Zoschak asked how late the lights will be on.


Mr. Remick said during business hours, except for security lights. 


Mr. Stern asked if more freestanding lights will be needed.


Mr. Remick said we may have to add some.


Item 2.8 – The 1,000 watt bulbs are proposed because of the layout of the site.  This is for the fixtures on the T-sheds.  If we reduced that to 250 watts we wouldn’t get the proper lighting within the yard.  It would necessitate placing poles in the traffic areas or adjacent to the rail.  We would provide shoebox fixtures where necessary.  We do feel the 1,000 watt is appropriate here.  There is significant screening on almost all sides, except for the easterly side adjacent to the rail spur.


Mr. Ferriero said it is too intense.


Mr. Stern said he feels 1,000 watts is very intense and is not something we have been approving.


Mr. Remick referred to sheet 10/15, lighting plan and stated the 1,000 watt fixtures are limited to the ones mounted on the T-sheds and over the main entrance of the building. 


Mr. Zoschak said the site will not operate at night.  Why do you need that light?


Mr. Remick stated during the winter hours, they will be necessary.


Mr. Rilee stated he agrees it is too intense.


Discussion.  The applicant agreed to reduce the wattage to 400 for the one on the front of the building and the ones that are on the three sheds, and work out the locations with Mr. Ferriero.  One or two more fixtures may need to be added.


4.1 – addressed

4.2 - waiver requested – Mr. Stern had no objection

4.9 – there will be portable sprinklers and hoses for watering the plantings.  We have also graded to provide watering from rain.


Mr. Stern had no objection.


Mr. Remick addressed Mr. Stern’s memo of 2/28/07, last updated 5/7/07


1.3 – Mr. Remick said we don’t propose any pedestrian interconnection as they are two distinct uses.  Mr. Stern had no objection.


1.10 – will be provided

1.11 – addressed

1.12 – addressed

1.19 – addressed – will be addressed further

1.20 – Mr. Remick stated we have applied for the necessary permits.  We will be revising the functional analysis due to the modifications to the plan.  It is currently under review at DEP for a number of general permits.

1.21, 1.22 – Mr. Remick stated we have received a letter from the MUA, and as a result of discussions, the MUA asked us to investigate providing recharge on the site.  We did investigate that, and discovered that in a number of locations there are sufficient soils and separation from the seasonable high water table to provide some recharge trenches.  We are directing the runoff from the roof leaders to the recharge trench, and have provided an overflow from that trench.  None of the stormwater discharge will go into Horseshoe Lake.  The letter from the MUA states they are in support of the revised plans and felt we addressed all their concerns.


Ms. DeMasi said she also received a letter from them and suggests they use best management practices and reduce the salt to Horseshoe Lake.


1.23 – Mr. Einhorn said at the last hearing, it was determined the parking of trailers does not require a variance. 


Mr. Rilee asked about outdoor storage and parking vehicles.  It was to be inside the building and along the loading bays and inside the T-sheds.


Mr. Remick stated that is correct.  The ones under the T-sheds would be completely under cover.  That would also apply to the 3-sided shed.


Mr. Stern said his concern would be in the future where parking under the T-sheds could lead to having numerous vehicles parked there.


Mr. Kuiken stated we are looking for the option to put a truck in the sheds on occasion.  If the T-sheds are an issue, we could limit it to the 3-sided shed. 


Mr. Kuiken agreed to limit the parking for only trucks associated with this operation.


It was determined the trucks would not be parked under the T-sheds, and would be limited to the 3-sided shed.  This will be a condition of approval to be noted on the plans and in the resolution.


1.23 – Mr. Germinario stated this is a bulk variance, and we are merely to judge whether the separation distance is mitigated by other factors including the neighboring uses and the uses of the public well that is within 500 feet.

Mr. Remick stated we have done a number of things relative to water quality and reducing impervious coverage on an operating lumberyard.  We also have jacked and bored a water main along Route 10.  That main has been partially extended along East Maple Avenue.  We have also provided stubs to the east and the west.  We discussed the wells with MUA and Morris County Planning Board.


1.24 – addressed

1.25 – we have not agreed to the conservation easement.  We have been cooperative with the Board and professionals.  We believe the area in question cannot be built upon because it is within the C-1 regulations of DEP.  We have no intention of doing anything there in the present, but if in the future DEP would allow us to, we would have to come back to the Board for approval.  We would not agree to the conservation easement at this point.


Mr. Rilee said it is not uncommon for us to require this, especially when it may impact Horseshoe Lake.  We are granting relief here in many instances, and I am surprised that the applicant does not agree to the conservation easement.


Mr. Einhorn said he will discuss that with the applicant.


1.26 – addressed – we have also enhanced the architectural details

1.27 – addressed – will be additional testimony from the planner

1.29 – addressed – Board needs to deliberate on those items.  There is one stretch that is presently overhead and will remain overhead.

1.36 – addressed – chain link fence will be maintained along the railroad tracks

1.41 – agreed

1.43 – board-on-board fence acceptable.


Mr. Einhorn stated Mr. Kuiken agrees to grant the conservation easement.




No one stepped forward.




Mr. Meyer stated there was a member of the public here and they asked me to tell you they are very pleased with the proposed screening.


The application was carried to 6/6/07.


The applicant granted an extension through 6/30/07




Attorney Michael Garafalo represented the applicant.  He stated this application is for preliminary site plan.  We already have Morris County Planning Board approval.  The tenants have changed.  The Dollar Store will still be proposed.  The applicant does not want to have the billiard hall or the daycare, but will have general retail.


Thomas Knutelsky was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background as a professional engineer and was accepted by the Board.  He referred to sheets 1 and 2 of the site plan gave an overview of the proposal stating the property is located at the intersection of Berkshire Valley Road and Route 46 in Kenvil.  There is a loading area on site, and the parking space sizes are generally 9’ x 18’, with some 10’ x 28’.  A variance is required for parking setback in the front yard.  There are currently 98 parking stalls on site with 38 stalls to the west, and the remainder are in the front to the east of the site.  It is a corner site with front yards on both roads.  There are existing gas facilities and sanitary sewer and electric facilities with an emergency generator.  The stormwater management system relies on a pump system, and the generator also services that.  Referring to sheet 3/5, the proposal for the site is a rehabilitation of the site.  The use for the site is intended to be retail.  The billiard use shown on the plan will be removed and will be proposed as retail.  That will reduce the parking requirement to 121 stalls.  We are maintaining the egress and ingress points and the general parking fields.  We will revise the striping to provide handicap parking stalls.  We wanted to try to better access the parking area to the rear with an additional sidewalk to the north.


Mr. Knutelsky showed a revised parking plan concept dated May 2007 (marked A-1) showing offsetting of some of the parking stalls to allow for 101 parking stalls on site, and provides for the required number of van accessible and general handicap stalls.  We want the parking to the rear to be mainly for employee parking and overflow parking.  The stalls are now shown as 9’ x 18’.


Mr. Rilee stated parking along the west side shows an entrance to the building on that side.


Mr. Knutelsky said there are rear entrances for employees, not for the general public.


Mr. Knutelsky stated it is his understanding shopping carts are not required for this use.


Mr. Knutelsky said the existing site was a supermarket.  For this use, we don’t feel we need to have a depressed loading area.  We intend to fill that area in and keep the 15’ x 60’ loading area, and provide circulation around the building with a sidewalk.  Outside of that loading area we show an 8’ x 8’ trash enclosure for bulk garbage and recycling.  It is our understanding the enclosures might not be sufficient for the use.  This is an existing site and there is not a lot of room for additional loading areas and trash enclosures.  We do propose to request relief for the loading area and provide for up to 3 separate trash enclosure areas.  That would be policed by tenant agreements.  The Dollar Store is indicating that they do their own recycling internal to the building.  The types of retail uses proposed have typical hours of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.  There would be self-policing to prevent deliveries during certain hours. 


Mr. Zoschak said you would not have access to all three tenants at that end.


Mr. Knutelsky stated that would be structured as part of the tenant agreement.  To continue, we intend to connect into existing sewer, gas and electric.  We feel the sidewalk connecting parking lots is important.  There are no conflicts there.  The screening for the generator would have to be rotated.  It is possible a smaller sized generator maybe used.  Regarding the screening wall, in order to provide for the loading area and trash enclosures, the wall is a hindrance to the site, and we propose to take it down and put up another screening buffer.  There is an 8’ high board-on-board fence with sufficient landscaping as a buffer as part of the 1993 approval.


Mr. Knutelsky showed sheet 4/5 that shows the landscaping for the site.  We have tried to provide replacement species and vegetation where the theoretical building entrances would be, as a result of suggestions from the Planner.  As to lighting, there are no proposals for any additional lighting on site.  The lighting shown on the plan is 0.5 foot candles, and there are void areas shown.  The sidewalks along the south of the property have bollard lights, and we would revise the plan to show that lighting.


Yung Kim, architect for the applicant, was sworn in and gave his educational and professional background and was accepted by the Board.


Mr. Kim gave an overview of the architecture for the site, stating the plans submitted showed the billiard hall, which is no longer proposed.  The proposal is for an 8,600 sq. ft. Family Dollar Store.   The store will occupy the front of the store.  The part to the rear will have two ADA bathrooms, storage, and employee area.   Entrance to the store will be by sliding doors.  There is a cashier area in the front.  The facility has an existing rear entry which will remain.


Mr. Stern asked where the doors are to the northerly tenant space.


Mr. Kim stated currently there is no tenant, and I have not drawn the layout of that at this time.


Mr. Zoschak asked if there is a rendering of the new façade.  There are no windows shown for the other retail establishments.


Mr. Kim stated we are trying to keep the existing façade of the building at this time.  There will probably be changes to the façade when the other tenant is identified.


Mr. Schwab asked if there is a possibility of having more than 3 tenants.


Mr. Kim stated he doesn’t know.


Mr. Meyer stated the development of Rt. 46 is very important.  There is a new medical facility across the street from this site.  Anything you can do to enhance the Rt. 46 corridor by the treatment of the outside of this building would be beneficial.


Mr. Kim said this building does not have a deep parapet.  We will be adding screening of the HVAC units. We propose a prefab unit that has a pre-coated manufacturer’s screen.


Mr. Rilee stated he wants further testimony on the other portion of the building.


Dr. Kye Chun was sworn in.  He stated he is the landlord and owner of the building.  He stated he does not know at this time home many tenants there will be and that he is very selective regarding the tenants.  The Family Dollar Store is a retail store, and is good for the community.  There are over 6,500 of these stores nationwide, and it is well operated.


Mr. DeFillippo asked if the façade for the building would be determined by what tenant will go in.


Dr. Chun stated that is correct.


Mr. DeFillippo stated we would like to see a consistent look.


Mr. Kim stated we will conform to what the town wants.


Mr. Stern stated it is a concern.  It is important that the architectural scheme is unified along this corridor.


Dr. Chun said he will discuss that with the architect and will unify the look of the building.


Mr. Rilee agreed, and stated the rear and both frontages should also have some decorative treatment.


Dr. Chun said we have a signed contract with Family Dollar Store, and would like permission to begin the interior renovation to the building.


Mr. Garafalo stated it is clear that there have been improvements to Rt. 46.  I sense that Roxbury is favorable to an overall physical improvement to the site.  Is it Roxbury’s protocol to allow, pre-approval, clean up of the site, some interior renovations?


Mr. Meyer stated we need more testimony than what we have had tonight.


Mr. Garafalo asked if Roxbury would allow some clean up to the site and some interior demolition work at the site.


Mr. Stern said the interior demolition wouldn’t require a zoning permit, but you should inquire in the construction department.


Mr. Germinario agreed the demolition doesn’t require a zoning permit, but you would be proceeding at your own risk.


Mr. Stern stated cleaning up the landscaping, etc. would also be acceptable.


Mr. Zoschak asked if the applicant is looking to open up the Dollar Store before renovating the rest of it.


Mr. Garofalo said perhaps. 


Mr. Rilee said there have been some issues with this site regarding screening and noise.  We had complaints from neighbors.  There may be some other site improvements that may be required with the Dollar Store.


Mr. Zoschak said we would all like to see some kind of plan for the rest of the façade as well.


The application was carried to 6/20/07.




Mr. Rilee asked when the last time was that we looked at the application fees.  He asked that Dolores check with neighboring towns.


The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:30 p.m.



                                                Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary