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 Meeting Act. .


BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Scott Meyer, Gary Behrens, Larry Sweeney, Jim Rilee, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Robert DeFillippo.  Joseph Schwab arrived at 7:40 p.m.


ABSENT:  Steven Alford, Charles Bautz, Robert Schultz.


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


Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary


Mr. Meyer announced Application PBA-07-11 – R. J. Investors will not be heard and is carried to 8/1/07.


Minutes of 5/16/07


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


Discussion.  Changes noted and made.


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









    Approved:  June 6, 2007

Memorialized:  June 6, 2007  




BLOCK 12602, LOT 16



            WHEREAS, Frank and Sheila Biank (hereinafter known as the “Applicant”) obtained minor subdivision approval from the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the “Planning Board”) on 9/6/06; and


            WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-47d, a minor subdivision approval expires 190 days from the date of memorialization, if a deed or plat has not been filed within that timeframe; and


            WHEREAS, pursuant to the MLUL, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-47f, the Board may extend the 190-day period if the Applicant was prevented from filing because of delays in obtaining legally required approvals, despite having diligently pursued such approvals; and


            WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the Applicant was prevented from filing because of delays in obtaining legally required approvals, despite having diligently pursued such approvals.


            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby grant the requested extension of time for filing of the Applicant’s minor subdivision deeds for an additional period of one year pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-47f, provided that the Applicant shall comply with the Mandatory Mt. Laurel Development fee in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit, pursuant to Ordinance §13-7.829 or any successor provision thereto.


            The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting of 6/6/07.


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


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




                                      ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD



 Decided:  June 6, 2007

 Memorialized:  June 20, 2007




BLOCK 4002, LOT 16



WHEREAS, Gruber Partners, LP/Kenvil Medical Center (hereinafter the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter the "Board") for final site plan approval on 6/6/07; and


WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete by the Board, and a public hearing was held on            6/6/07; 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 74,117 sq. ft. located in the B-2 Highway Business District.  By Resolution memorialized   12/7/05, Applicant was granted preliminary major site plan approval with variances and design waivers to convert an existing warehouse to medical offices.  The Applicant is now before the Board seeking final site plan approval.


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


Prepared by WSB Engineering Group, PA


-          Sheet 1 of 1, Site As-Built Plan, dated/signed 5/15/07


Prepared by Knudsen Engineering, Inc.


-         Sheet 1, Site Plan, revised 11/27/06

-         Sheet 2, Existing Conditions Plan, revised 3/14/06

-         Sheet 3, Grading/Utilities Plan, revised 11/15/06

-         Sheet 4, Erosion Control Plan, revised 11/15/06

-         Sheet 5, Drainage Area Plan, revised 11/15/06

-         Sheet 6, Illumination Plan, revised 11/15/06

-         Sheet 7, Sight Distance Plan, dated 11/15/06

-         Sheet 8, General Site Notes, revised 5/31/06

-         Sheet 9, Details, revised 11/15/06

-         Sheet 10, Details, revised 5/31/06

-         Sheet 11, Details, revised 11/15/06

-         Sheet 12, Details, revised 11/15/06

-         Sheet 13, Details, revised 11/15/06

-         Sheet 14, Landscaping Plan, revised 11/15/06

-         Sheet 15, Soil Moving Permit Calculations, dated 1/6/06

-         Sheet 16, Operation and Maintenance Plan, revised 11/15/06

-         Comparison Report, dated 5/23/07


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


Russell Stern, PP, dated 5/31/07

Paul Ferriero, PE, dated 6/4/07


4.  In the course of the public hearing, no exhibits were marked and are part of the hearing record.


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


Richard Knudsen, P.E., engineer

Ed McGinley, project manager


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


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board does hereby approve the final site plan as depicted and described in the drawings and/or plans referenced hereinabove.  Applicant may receive a temporary certificate of occupancy immediately.


This approval is subject to the following conditions which shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy, but not later than 30 days from the memorialization of this action with the exception of condition #3;


1.  Sheet 1 of the 16-sheet submission shall be labeled as a final site plan.


2.  The title block of the As-Built Plan shall reference Roxbury Township rather than Dover.


3.  The flat steel service door along the northern building elevation shall be replaced with a steel panel door as was depicted on the approved drawings and constructed on the east and west elevations.


4.  The area in the vicinity of the gas control pits along the northern portion of Berkshire Valley Road is in poor condition.  This area shall either be provided with topsoil and seeded or decorative gravel with filter fabric to prevent weeds.


5.  Sparse lawn areas shall be reseeded, including the intersection of Route 46 and Berkshire Valley Road.


6.  Portable toilet shall be removed.


7.  Two ‘ZS’ street trees shall be installed along the northerly portion of the Berkshire Valley Road frontage.


8.  Installation of the Typar root biobarrier (or equivalent) along the face of the sidewalk shall be verified.


9.  Detectable warning treatment will be installed per Detail 4/C3.1 and per County requirements.


10.  A double yellow line will be applied at the driveway entrance to Berkshire Valley Road.


11.  The area behind the guide rail along Berkshire Valley Road will be topsoiled and seeded.


12.  The grading at the intersection of Route 46 and Berkshire Valley Road will be “touched up” and seeded.


13.  Cleanouts to the south of the building will be set flush with finish grade.


14.  The loose coil of cable will be removed at Utility Pole 86.


15.  Low flow channels will be installed in all inlets.


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


Condition 2 – All lab tests and hazardous wastes shall be stored indoors.


Condition 4 – No tractor-trailer deliveries on the site are permitted.


Condition 8 – Any antennae and/or satellite dish shall comply with Section 13-7.812.


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


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


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


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


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


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


The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Resolution of the Roxbury Township Planning Board memorializing the action taken by the Board at its meeting of 6/6/07.


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


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






Mr. Germinario stated two actions are requested.  Regarding an extension of the final subdivision/site plan approval originally granted 7/21/04, we extended it last year for an additional year and he is asking for another extension.  The MLUL allows for 3 extensions.  I haven’t communicated with the applicant or the attorney and don’t know the grounds.


Ms. DeMasi said his attorney has not been able to get the revised easements and deeds approved by Mr. Bucco. 


Mr. Sweeney made a motion to approve the extension for one year.  Mr. Behrens seconded.


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


Mr. Germinario said the applicant is also requesting an extension of the soil permit originally approved in May of 2005.  We would have to extend it for 2 ½ years to be meaningful.


Mr. Schwab arrived at 8:40.




Mr. Sweeney made a motion to extend the soil permit to July 1, 2008.  Mr. Behrens seconded.


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




Attorney Gary Strong represented the applicant.


Larry Murphy, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background and was accepted by the Board.  He stated his office prepared the soil movement application and did the earthwork calculations.  We have determined about 1106 cubic yards will be exported – about 18 cubic yards per truck, for a total of 61 trips.  The trips will be via Route 46 to Rt. 80, via Howard Blvd, or Rt. 46.  We don’t have a destination site at this time.  It will be going outside the township. 


Mr. Murphy addressed Mr. Ferriero’s report dated 6/13/07: 


Item 1 - agreed

Item 2 – After discussion on hours of operation, it was determined the hours will be 7 to 4 on weekdays and 8 to 12 on Saturday. 


Mr. Murphy stated regarding the site work, the ordinance requires Belgian block.  We would like to request concrete curb along the main entrances where there will be pedestrians.


Mr. Germinario said that would require modification of the site plan approval, and we can’t do that tonight.


Mr. Stern stated there is discretionary language for concrete curb in such locations.  It could be done as a field change and wouldn’t require a waiver.  It is in keeping with the code and I would like to see a map showing where it is proposed.


The applicant agreed.


All other items in Mr. Ferriero’s report are agreeable to the applicant.


Mr. Behrens asked about the other property adjacent to Rt. 46. The town is making a concerted effort for property maintenance on Rt. 46.  This site hasn’t been maintained.  It needs work.


The applicant agreed to clean it up as the construction progresses.




No one stepped forward.




Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the application with the hours as agreed to.  Mr. Zoschak seconded.


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




Attorney Alexandro Tafros represented the applicant.  He stated this application is for a minor site plan approval for renovation of the Commerce Boulevard. façade of the Roxbury Mall.  This application deals with only architectural upgrades.  There are no site improvements proposed at this time.  We requested a waiver from the completeness checklist and we understand the professionals have no objection to that.


Sal Davino, principal with Roxville Associates, was sworn in.  He stated we purchased the land in 1986 and finished construction in 1989.  We want to fix up the site.  The new centers going up have a lot of dimension to them.  We are trying to get some depth as an architectural treatment. 


Mr. Tafros said the reason we had to come was because of the height. 


Mr. Davino referred to the proposed exterior renovation, phase I (marked A-1).  The ordinance allows 28 feet.  The highest point is 44 feet at one pediment.  The rest of them are within the 28 to 30 foot range.  Only the pediment on the Commerce Boulevard side will violate the height ordinance.  The only elevation that won’t be changed is Kohl’s.  The same elements will go all the way around.  Only the one will be at 44 feet. 


Mr. Stern said this approval does not pertain to signage.  They would have to come in for permits for the signs.


Mr. Rilee asked if the signage will stay at roughly the same height.


Mr. Davino said no.  We want to vary the signs if we can.  The highest sign probably would be at about 6 or 7 feet higher than what it is now. 


Mr. Zoschak asked if the sign package will be a uniform sign package.


Mr. Davino said yes, and when we continue with this project the focus will be on lighting.


Mr. Rilee said he likes the plan, cosmetically speaking.  Are there any plans on redoing the pylon sign?


Mr. Davino said we will be back before the Board for that.


Edward Maceiko, architect for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background and was accepted by the Board.   He gave an overview of the plan, referring to exhibit A-1, with more details, (marked A-2).  The purpose of the renovation is to add vertical elements to the elevation.  We plan to anchor each end with a tower about 36’ high.  It will be a metal frame with a brick exterior forming columns.  Above that will be an eface with decorative millwork, and the top will have a metal roof.  The glass shown will be a vinyl frame translucent panel that will be internally illuminated.  The exterior will be lit with wall washers around the 4 sides of the tower and along the building.  We plan to reconstruct the current fascia and relocate existing signs.  The storefronts will remain as is.  There will be a brick façade farther down as well.  Tower B is 44’ to the top and will have brick face, with decorative moldings and a translucent panel internally lit.  The center of the tower is at about the center of the elevation and the elements repeat as you move down.  This work won’t increase impervious coverage or floor area.


Mr. DeFillippo asked about the walkway.


Mr. Davino stated if we can get enough depth to get the look we want, we may want to move the sidewalk out 12 inches.  If that happens, we will come back for site plan modification.


Mr. DeFillippo asked if the flagpole area will be changed.

Mr. Davino stated not now – this is just for the building.


Exhibit A-3 was marked – Alta Title Survey   Lots 3,5, 7 8 – Block 5004


Mr. Zoschak asked about the rooftop equipment.


Mr. Davino said none of it is visible and it will remain not visible.  Lighting details will be provided.  Sheet A-2 is what would be constructed, but it needs some corrections. 


Mr. Meyer asked if there are any plans to include the portion of the mall in the back.


Mr. Davino said we will be doing it, but not at this time.


Mr. Meyer said the reason the applicant is here is to seek approval for the height variance for the building.




Mr. Davino agreed to return to the Board with the lighting package, and the signs.  We are just asking for an approval of the concept.


The Board agreed with the concept, and the applicant will return with full plans for the architecture and lighting and signage.


Mr. Davino stated he would like to come back with the lighting and sign package for just the Commerce Blvd. frontage, as there are changes coming to some of the tenants on the other frontages.


Discussion.  Mr. Rilee suggested addressing it in phases.


It was determined the applicant will return on 7/11/07 with the lighting and signage package for the Commerce Boulevard. frontage.


The Board unanimously approved of the height variance.


The application was carried to 7/11/07.


There was a 5 minute recess at 8:30 p.m.




Attorney Michael Garafolo represented the applicant.  At the last meeting, we were asked to change the façade treatment and give it a unified feel and give attention to the rear of the building.   We are prepared to present that to you tonight.  We are still presenting a multi-tenant commercial facility with only one of the tenants on board at this time.


Yung Kim, architect for the applicant, stepped forward and said the revised elevation shows an effort to resurface the building, especially the rear view.  We raised the parapet to act as screening for the HVAC units.  We will cover it with efface treatment that will be applied to the split face block.  The other two elevations will follow the treatment of the front.  The rear elevation is very similar to the front view, absent the front entrances to the tenant spaces.  The color has not yet been decided, but I would believe it will be a pastel yellow or white.  The rear elevation shows half columns attached to the surface.  Above that is stucco, with a difference of depth to give a look of a shadow line. 


Mr. Stern asked if channel signage is proposed.


Mr. Kim said yes.  The sign application will be done separately.  The rendering shows the approximate location of the signs.


Mr. Meyer asked if the entry to the current supermarket will remain.


Discussion. – Mr. Kim said we will make removal of that area a part of the application.  The greenhouse/sunroom area will be removed and that area will have the efface treatment.


Mr. Behrens asked if there will be one entrance for the two tenants.


Mr. Kim said we don’t know where the entrance will be to the other tenants.  We are asking for approval of the elevation and the dollar store tenant space.


Mr. Meyer said the Board will be looking for a uniform treatment for the building, irregardless of who the tenant will be. 


Mr. Kim agreed and said the future tenants will conform with the dollar store elevation.


Mr. Garafalo said the future tenants will not have the option to change the façade.  We would be willing to come back for signs.


Mr. Kim stated we don’t know how big the future tenants will be.  But the whole façade will be unified.  The tenants will just have to put in a new door.   That will be in the tenant lease.


Mr. Behrens asked if they could say the number of tenants won’t exceed 3.


Mr. Kim said he cannot say.


Mr. Stern stated the drawings need further refinement.  There is no reference to the knee wall.  I also have a concern with it fitting in with the building across the street that was recently done.  I am uncomfortable with the arch treatment, etc.  We need to look at more of the details.  The façade needs to be further enhanced.  The plan has come a long way.  Another concern is the issue of loading and trash.


Mr. Meyer said the Board would like to see a color rendering of the façade.  He agreed this should be similar to the medical building across the street.


Mr. Stern stated there should be an architectural treatment of the rear entrance doors as well.


Mr. Knutelsky, engineer for the applicant, stepped forward.  He described the sign package, stating the Family Dollar Store is their typical sign package.  He said there will be channel type lettering as well as for the other retail spaces.  He referred to Exhibit A-2, Family Dollar Store signs, and described the proposed signs.  On the site plan drawing on sheet 3/5, the signs are located on specific sides of the building.  Sign #1, #2, and #3 are along the front façade. Sign #4 is along the side façade.  This corner tenant has frontage on both roadways and we propose two façade signs.  Sign #2 and Sign #3 will be 5’ high and 20’ long, corresponding to an area and length less than 65% the length of the wall where the tenant will be located, and 10% of the actual wall area.  Sign #1 and Sign #4 will require variances.  Sign #4 toward the intersection of Berkshire Valley Road and Rt. 46 will be 5’6” tall, 6” above the ordinance requirement.  The length of that sign will be 34’11” where 78’ would be permitted.  In terms of area, 254 sq. ft. would be permitted and our sign area is 192 sq. ft.  The only thing we don’t’ comply with is the diameter of the shield, which is the standard sign.  Justification for that variance is that the actual sign is related to the Family Dollar Store and there is familiarity with the sign.  We believe the sign would be a positive.  Any detriment would be minimal in nature due to the fact it is only 6” greater in diameter.  Sign #1 would be 6’ x 10’6 ½L”.  The wall where it will be mounted would permit 39’, and we propose 10.54’.  10% of the area of the elevation would be 126 sq. ft., and we are proposing 63.24 sq. ft.  The sign width would require a variance.  The location of the sign is to be in two lines.  Sign #4 will change because of the sunroom modification.  We had originally proposed a pylon sign, and we will be using a ground mounted monument sign of the same sign area at 68.5 sq. ft., internally illuminated.  The Family Dollar sign will be adjusted for the monument setting at 4.1’ tall x 7.15’ wide.  Retail A and Retail B will be below that, mounted on a pedestal with a stone veneer.


Mr. Behrens asked why you can’t adjust the other signs as well.


Mr. Knutelsky stated this sign is not a channel sign.  


Ed Voorhis, project manager with  Family Dollar Store, was sworn in.  He stated there is a base box mounted to the wall.  Attached to that is a polycarbonite face that takes the shape of the letters.  He showed a catalog cut sheet (marked A-).  It is illuminated internally, and you see it through a white background.  


The applicant agreed to submit all the details for review by the Board and the Board professionals.


Mr. Rilee stated the treatment of the signage should be done very carefully.  The monument sign needs embellishment. 


Mr. Garafalo stated variances required for FAR, lot coverage, parking and front yard setback were pre-existing.  We are going to stay within the limits of the site and these are things we can’t change.  


Mr. Rilee said he agrees with the comments, provided we get the right architectural design.  I believe this will be an improvement.


Mr. Stern said the FAR and impervious coverage will decrease with the elimination of the glass entranceway and the greenhouse area.


Mr. Garafalo stated all items in the reports have either been addressed or are agreed to.


Mr. Ferriero stated #4 in his report says the existing lighting is lower than the ordinance requirement.  Is that the case?


Mr. Knutelsky stated for the existing site lighting, there are a number of 20’ shoebox luminares in the parking lot.  They are 400 watt high pressure sodium lights.  There are 2 building mounted lights, and along the Rt. 46 sidewalk there are a number of bollard lights that illuminate the sidewalk.  In terms of meeting the ordinance for 0.5 foot-candles, because the configuration of the parking lot is set, I believe it would be difficult to meet that ordinance.  We can address new sidewalk areas, but in terms of the internal configuration of the parking lot I believe it would be difficult to meet that in all instances.   


Mr. Ferriero said the plan shows some gaps.  As far as the northern driveway around the end of the building, there is lighting along the sidewalk there.  The cars will have headlights, and there are residential areas adjacent.  I would not say you need to put more lighting on the north side of the building.  In the eastern portion, the light poles are on the islands at the ends of the parking stalls, and there are some gaps.  You could probably fill those gaps by putting 2 poles in the center and putting a diamond island in between the intersection of the 4 parking spaces if the Board wants the higher level of lighting.  The site operated for many years with the current lighting, and I don’t believe additional lighting should be required.


Mr. Knutelsky said we will provide illumination levels to Mr. Ferriero.


Mr. Zoschak asked about the hours of operation.


Mr. Chung said 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days a week.  We typically have 4 employees per shift, with probably 4 hour shifts.  Products we sell go from household goods, some automobile products, items similar to a K-Mart, on a much smaller scale – packaged foods, a refrigerator area for milk, etc. 


Mr. Ferriero said the applicant said there is a trash compactor, but the detail shows 3 dumpsters.


Mr. Knutelsky referred to exhibit A-3, detail of loading area/trash enclosure, detail plan A.  He stated we are limited on the site to where we can put a loading area.  The existing area is on the north side of the building.  We are showing a lengthening of the trash enclosure area with a 6 yard dumpster.  The two 3-yard containers behind it are on casters and would be filled and wheeled out to the general loading area for pickup of cardboard and recycling.  This will be done about twice a week. 


Mr. Stern asked where the recyclables go.


Mr. Knutelsky said our proposal is to have all tenants use the enclosure. 


Mr. Chung said there is an existing compactor.  There is a roll-up door for access. 


Mr. Stern said that would have to be depicted on the drawings.


Mr. Kim stated we are not proposing to use the trash compactor.  The prior use was a super market, and we don’t have the amount of trash associated with that. 


Mr. Stern suggested these issues be addressed in a narrative when the drawings are resubmitted.


Mr. Chung stated in certain instances, Family Dollar does install a compactor inside the space to reduce the cardboard issue.  We have about a 400 lb. bale that is tied up, and it can be wheeled to an area for removal.  I would have to confirm that with our operations.


Mr. Meyer said the applicant needs to come to an agreement as to how it will be handled by the next hearing.


Mr. Zoschak said his concern is that the trash area will be filled up very fast and will overflow.  There may be a safety issue for people walking back there. 


Mr. Knutelsky stated the entire area is enclosed on 4 sides.  The red striped area is just traffic stripes.


Mr. Zoschak said that is where the concern is.  Dumpsters fill up very quickly and overflow.  The concern is that the walkway is not protected.


Mr. Chung stated that would be handled by the management.


Mr. Stern said a decorative block wall may be more desirable.




Mr. Knutelsky stated we were reserving this area as our loading area.  To fence the entire length would be difficult. 


Mr. Rilee asked about the internal compactor.  Is there one for garbage and one for recyclables?


Mr. Chung said it is a cardboard compactor.


Mr. Knutelsky referred to Exhibit A-4, loading/trash enclosure Plan B.  This plan has an enclosure with 3 larger trash units, one for garbage and the other two for cardboard with a dedicated gate along the front.  The problem here would be that we would lose the 60 foot long loading area.  It would be 54 feet long.


Mr. Zoschak said that would make it a lot safer if the block wall goes around the whole back of the loading area.  What is the frequency and size of truck delivery?


Mr. Knutelsky said there would be 1 truck per week, a standard tractor about 65’ total length.  They typically come during business hours.  That can be arranged with the operations people.


Mr. Stern said the Board typically requests Title 39 or the equivalent.  That should be a requirement here.  There is also the issue of the trash enclosure.  Would the Board entertain a masonry trash enclosure at the southwest corner of the building?


The Board said they would entertain that.


It was determined the applicant will provide a written response to Mr. Stern’s report, and will meet with the professionals before the next hearing.




No one stepped forward.




The application was carried to 7/18/07.


                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary