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

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairperson Gail Robortaccio presiding. After a salute to the Flag, Ms. Robortaccio read the “Open Public Meeting Act”.

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Gail Robortaccio, Robert Kurtz, Sebastian D’Amato, Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Peter Giardina, Barbara Kinback, Edward Data.

ABSENT: John Wetzel.

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.

Minutes of 6/11/07

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Kinback seconded.

Discussion.

Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

Minutes of 8/13/07

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Giardina seconded.

Discussion.

Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

RESOLUTIONS

BA-07-7 – WOODMONT REALTY – SITE PLAN FOR WAREHOUSE/OFFICE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9603, LOTS 3 & 4 IN OB ZONE

In the matter of Woodmont Realty

Case No. BA-7-07

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: August 13, 2007

Memorialized: September 10, 2007

WHEREAS, Woodmont Realty has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a 37,454 square foot flexible office/warehouse building requiring use variance, dimensional variance, waiver and site plan approval* for premises located at 1751 Route 46 and known as Block 9603, Lots 3 & 4 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “OB” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.27 et. seq. of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

Peter J. Wolfson, Esquire represented the applicant.
The applicant is the owner of the subject premises.
The subject premises consist of 7.15 acres in the OB Office Building District. The property is unimproved and contains a pond, wetland, and some partially wooded areas.
The subject premises are somewhat triangular in shape and located on the westbound side of Route 46. The northerly property line (rear) composes a steep embankment rising up to Interstate Route 80. The Township Municipal Building

*See copy of applicant’s attached notice, which covers the complete relief being sought by the applicant. Said proposal requires relief from the Zoning Ordinance of Roxbury Township as noted above.

is located to the east and there is a residential/auto use to the west. Both the Township property and the auto use property are also in the OB Office Building Zone.

In 2003, the Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a use variance to the applicant. At that time, the vision for the development of the site was for a one-story 40,000 square foot flexible office/warehouse building. It was envisioned that at least 40% of the building would be used for office space. Due to parking constraints, the building would have had a maximum office use of 85%. The Office Building District prohibits warehouse use and thus, a use variance was needed.
The 2003 approval was a bifurcated application. The applicant presented a concept site plan, but the 2003 approval was never fully implemented. The applicant is now seeking an extension of the three-year time period required of “d” variances. If a “d” variance is not implemented within three years of the date of approval (3/24/03 for this application) then same is void.
As pointed out and reiterated in the 2/7/07 report of the Township Planner, the 2003 Board of Adjustment made the following specific findings of fact to guide future Boards of Adjustment:

A. Testimony to be adduced at the time of the site plan application confirming the traffic testimony given at the time of the use variance;

B. Building is to be a one-story building and same is to be designed so as to have appearance of a visually pleasing office building from Route 46. The intent being to keep the warehouse use to the rear of the building where same would not be visible to the traveling public on Route 46.

As noted from the attached public notice, the applicant needed numerous variances as well as site plan approval and waivers to implement the proposed plan. The applicant is essentially seeking modified reaffirmation of the prior “d” variance together with major site plan approval, related “c” variances and design waivers for a one-story 37,454 square foot flexible office/warehouse building. As applied for, the office use would encompass 95% (35,581 square feet) of the building and warehouse use 5% (1,873 square feet). The applicant was proposing roll-up overhead drive-in doors along the rear of the building for possible future use. Two ingress/egress drives are proposed to service the building with one-way circulation along the easterly side of the building and a two-way circulation along the westerly side. The applicant was proposing a wet pond stormwater detention basin at the eastern portion of the property. It was anticipated public sewer and water would service the building. The existing billboard signs along the eastern portion of the site would be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
The Board received the following reports:

Michael Kobylarz, Township Engineer, dated 1/29/07
John Hansen, Board Engineer, dated 2/6/07, updated 5/11/07, 6/7/07
Russell Stern, Township Planner, dated 2/7/07, (updated 5/4/07, 6/5/07), 5/29/07, and 6/607.
Traffic Report, dated 5/9/07 from John Desch Associates, Inc.

The applicant submitted the following documents:

Prepared by Ritter & Plante Associates, LLC – revised 4/10/07, revised 5/11/07

Sheet 1, Site Location Plan

Sheet 2, Existing Features Plan

Sheet 3, Demolition Plan

Sheet 4, Site Plan

Sheet 5, Grading and Utility Plan

Sheet 6, Landscape and Lighting Plan

Sheet 7, Erosion & Sediment Control Plan

Sheet 8, Construction Detail A

Sheet 9, Construction Detail B

Sheet 10, Construction Detail C

Sheet 11, Construction Detail C

Sheet 12, Profiles Plan

Sheet 13, Route 46 Cross Sections Plan

Sheet 14, Curb Intersection Profiles

Sheet 15, Lighting Point Grid Plan

Sheet 1 of 2, Tree Removal Plan

Sheet 2 of 2, Tree Replacement Plan

Sheet 1 of 2, Existing Drainage Plan

Sheet 2 of 2, Proposed Drainage Plan

Sheet 1 of 1, Soil Movement Plan

Development Impact Statement, dated 3/15/05

Sheet 1 of 1, Traffic Circulation Plan

Prepared by Albert Dattoli, Architect

Sheet 1 of 1, Floor Plan and Elevations, revised 5/24/07

Prepared by Harlyn Associates

Traffic Impact Study, dated October 2002

The initial public hearing on the instant application was conducted on 3/12/07. The applicant presented the testimony with its professional planner, George Ritter. Mr. Ritter analyzed the instant proposal and contrasted it to the 2003 use variance. Mr. Ritter noted the findings and conclusions of the 2003 Board and opined that the instant proposal would conform to the spirit and intent of the prior use variance notwithstanding the deviation and the mix of office and warehouse use. He noted the proposal included 161 parking spaces. He also marked two exhibits, Sheet A-1 being a colorized rendition of Sheet 2 of the site plan submittal and A-2 being a colorized rendition of Sheet 4 of the site plan submission.
The applicant called its traffic expert, Gary Dean. Mr. Dean updated the prior traffic report that was submitted to the Board. In addition, he gave an overview of the proposed traffic flow on site as well as the access that was proposed on Route 46. Mr. Dean noted the New Jersey Department of Transportation had approved the applicant’s proposal relative to access from Route 46. During the course of his testimony, it was clear the Board had some concerns about the viability of the proposed traffic plan. After discussing with the Board’s professionals and an initial review of the Board professional’s reports, it was determined that the matter be carried to a future public hearing.
Upon recommendation of the Board’s Engineering Consultant, the Board, at the 4/9/07 public hearing, voted to engage an independent traffic consultant. The matter was then continued to the 5/14/07 public hearing.
The matter was continued at the 5/14/07 hearing.
The applicant called its site engineer, David Plante, to testify. Mr. Plante noted the revisions made for ingress/egress. The proposed median cut on Route 46 (westerly) would be eliminated. A new left turn lane would be created on Route 46 East through the median. There would be an opportunity for traffic to queue or stack.
The Board’s traffic consultant, John Desch, also testified at the hearing and reviewed his 5/9/07 report as well as the redesign approved by NJDOT. Mr. Desch concluded the NJDOT revisions were a significant upgrade.
Mr. Plante reviewed some of the outstanding issues in the latest comments from Messrs. Stern and Hansen. He noted a sidewalk (subject to NJDEP/NJDOT) was provided along Route 46. The applicant will apply to both agencies and will install the sidewalk, if approved. The applicant will notify both agencies that the Board is requesting sidewalks.
Mr. Plante noted the revised plans triggered additional design waivers:

Elimination of 2 landscape island(s)

Albert Dattoli, architect, was the next witness to testify. He described the plans he prepared for the building. He reviewed exhibit A-4, which was the architectural exhibit attached to the original submission dated 4/21/06 revised to 7/20/06. As designed, the building would provide flexibility. He also identified A-5, a photo depicting a similar existing building.
Mr. Dattoli indicated the rooftop would be visible and reviewed photo exhibit A-7 showing the anticipated view.
David Plante was recalled at the 6/11/07 hearing. He reviewed A-8, which was a plan showing 88% office space. This was part of the applicant’s desire to create a flexible site plan permitting a range of percentages for office vs. warehouse space. The minimum office to warehouse would be 40%.
Mr. Plante also identified exhibits A-9 and A-10, which were computer simulations of the proposed elevations of the building from various vantage points along Route 46.
Albert Dattoli, architect, was also recalled. He testified as to the nature of the treatment of the rooftop.
After a colloquy with the Board, the applicant agreed to reduce the potential parameters (mix of office space to warehouse space) to a minimum of 40% office to a maximum of 72% office. The applicant’s professionals demonstrated that other than the re-stripping of the parking lot, the infrastructure would not have to be changed and that the site plan would work within the variables (40% to 72% office/warehouse ratio) and that upon any alteration, the applicant would have to have same reviewed by the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer, and if there was a question, the matter would have to come back to the Board.
The matter was carried to a future meeting to resolve some of the issues raised relative to the site plan and outstanding comments of the professional staff.
The application was resumed on 7/9/07. The applicant presented a 7/5/07 memorandum. Same provided a recapitulation of the outstanding issues.
The applicant’s architect, Stephanie Pentle, identified A-11 showing the front elevation and presented brick samples to be utilized on the building and retaining wall. She also identified A-12 (7/3/07 design revision).
David Plante also testified as to the outstanding engineering issues and planning issues and presented A-13 showing a driver’s view from Route 80 eastbound. It was agreed to raise the parapet to screen Route 46 eastbound and westbound traffic. Mr. Plante presented A-14 showing Route 46 elevation of the front of the building.
The applicant then went over each of the latest reports of the professional staff specifically, the Township Planner and the Board’s Engineering Consultant.
The applicant also presented as “Exhibit A”, a final list of variances and waivers being sought by the applicant.
The applicant also submitted the following revised plans:

· Exhibit A: Variances & Waivers, dated 6/29/07

· Exhibit B: Ritter and Plante site plan 4 of 15, revised 6/25/07. This plan, as requested by Township professionals, shows the final site layout for the maximum office configuration.

· Exhibit C: Site Plan, revised 6/25/07, showing “Prospective Flex Space Location”.

· Exhibit D: Site Plan, revised 6/25/07, showing the area of “Prospective Area for Roof-Top Equipment”.

· Exhibit E: Woodmont Flex Building, by Albert Dattoli, revised 7/3/07, showing the revised Elevation of the front and sides of the building with the raised parapet, revised details and proposed monument sign.

· Exhibit F: Sight Line Profile From Route 80, revised 6/25/07, by Ritter & Plante – Substantiates Applicants claim that the rooftop HVAC units will not be visible from Route 80.

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

1. The within site plan advances the purpose of the use variance previously granted to the applicant.

The approved site plan consists of:

· Exhibit A: Variances & Waivers, dated 6/29/07

· Exhibit B: Ritter and Plante site plan 4 of 15, revised 6/25/07. This plan, as requested by Township professionals, shows the final site layout for the maximum office configuration.

· Exhibit C: Site Plan, revised 6/25/07, showing “Prospective Flex Space Location”.

· Exhibit D: Site Plan, revised 6/25/07, showing the area of “Prospective Area for Roof-Top Equipment”.

· Exhibit E: Woodmont Flex Building, by Albert Dattoli, revised 7/3/07, showing the revised Elevation of the front of the building with the raised parapet, revised details and proposed monument sign.

· Exhibit F: Sight Line Profile From Route 80, revised 6/25/07, by Ritter & Plante – Substantiates Applicants claim that the rooftop HVAC units will not be visible from Route 80.

As part of the approval, the Board grants the applicant the right to construct a flex building without need to return to the Board of Adjustment provided the following conditions of occupancy are satisfied.

Maximum Office Use:

Office at 77% x 37,454 / 225 = 129 spaces

Flex at 23% x 37,454 x 1.5 / 1,000 = 13 spaces

Parking Required 142 spaces

Parking Provided 142 spaces

Minimum Office Use:

Office at 40% x 37,454 / 225= 67 spaces

Flex at 60% x 37,454 x 1.5 / 1,000= 34 spaces

Parking Required 101 spaces

Parking Provided 127 spaces

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of July 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

1. Subject to the review and approval of all other governmental agencies with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the within matter including but not limited to NJDOT and NJDEP.

NJDEP approval is required of the final revision of the plans and stormwater report as approved by the Township professionals.
Subject to any timing restrictions for land disturbance as required by NJDEP noting the NJDEP approval will specify those limits.
NJDOT access permit for revised layout.
No interstate trucking operations.
No outdoor storage.
No hazardous chemicals stored, loaded, or unloaded.
Any change of tenancy shall be subject to the Township Ordinance regulating the change of tenancy, and in particular, Section 13-3.101 et. seq.
Prior to any land disturbance, the applicant shall field stake the limit of disturbance. Temporary fencing installation to be approved by the Township Engineering Department prior to any disturbance.
Applicant shall provide documentation from the manufacturer of the stormwater infiltration system verifying the suitability and utility of the proposed system as designed by the applicant’s engineer. Same to be reviewed by the Township Engineering consultant.
The design of all retaining walls shall be approved by the Township Engineer prior to any land disturbance.
The reinforced concrete walls and keystone walls shall be reviewed by the Board Engineer and the proposed treatment of same shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
Applicant shall provide a maintenance manual for the stormwater system, which shall be filed so that same is part of the chain of title.
Applicant is to provide a timeline of construction of stormwater improvements and stabilization prior to implementing of same, which shall be reviewed by the Township Engineering Department.
All proposed metes and bounds descriptions for all easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineering Consultant.
Geotechnical Engineer shall be required to inspect and certify construction elements as outlined in the report of the Township’s Engineering Consultant.
Subject to the review and approval of the Morris County Planning Board and the Morris County Soil Conservation District.
Applicant shall provide their pro-rata share of off-site and off-tract contributions as determined by the Township Engineer.
Applicant shall confirm the availability and capacity for sanitary sewer and municipal water.
Applicant shall obtain a soil movement permit in accordance with Township regulations.
It is noted that the Geotechnical Engineer must be present during the installation of the infiltration system to ensure that all specifications and standards have been achieved adjacent to the system. The Geotechnical Engineer shall also be present during the installation of the 25’ deep clay cutoff wall between the infiltration units. The Geotechnical Engineer shall provide appropriate certification of same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineering Consultant.
Subject to the approval of the NJDEP relative to the applicant’s waiver for the surface area of the proposed wet pond.
Applicant shall provide safety fences on the top of the proposed walls as deemed appropriate by the Township Engineer Consultant. The Township Planner shall review the proposed fence material and height.
The retaining walls, which will require disturbance in the Route 80 right-of-way, shall be redesigned as reinforced concrete retaining walls.
The applicant’s request for a design waiver of Best Management Standards for the safety ledges for their required wet pond approval shall be reviewed and approved by NJDEP.
Applicant shall provide the architectural plans to be consistent with the proposed wall and grading shown on the last iteration of the site plan.
Applicant shall abandon all existing septic systems and/or wells in accordance with Township Health Department requirements and shall certify to the presence or absence of same.
All proposed utilities shall be constructed underground in accordance with Township Ordinance.
All sewer and water details and methods of construction shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer or the appropriate utility.
All improvements shown with the Route 46 right-of-way are subject to approval from NJDOT and NJDEP.
All proposed fire lanes and no parking zones are to be approved by the Fire Official.
The Zoning Table on sheet 4 shall reflect the approved office/warehouse ratios.
Applicant shall provide plans that depict the two striping alternatives at 72% offices/28% warehouse and 40% offices/60%warehouse.
Note 28 shall be revised on all applicable drawings to accurately reflect the office/warehouse ratio(s) approved by the Board.
Traffic lane striping shall be provided to circulate around loading spaces.
An exhibit shall be provided to the Board Engineer to show that tractor-trailers can adequately access the two loading spaces.
Details for the recessed loading dock spots, concrete steps and adjoining area shall be provided.
Note 24 shall be revised on all applicable drawings to specify that the billboard sign shall be removed prior to the issuance of a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy.
Freestanding sign shall be landscaped per ordinance.
On sheet 1, provide most recent revision date for the architectural drawings.
The Variance and Waivers table on sheet 4 shall be updated.
The split rail fence along northerly retaining wall shall be labeled.
Two building access points are depicted on sheet 4 along the easterly building elevation but not on the architectural drawing. Please clarify.
The EIS must be corrected to reflect the current proposal (37,454 square feet, 161 parking spaces, availability of public water, etc.) by providing an addendum.
Enhanced architectural treatment and heavy landscaping along the front building elevation and parallel to Route 46 along the front parking bay is required per the satisfaction of the Township Planner.
“No Parking Fire Zones” shall be established to the right of the building in the area opposite of the loading zone.
“No Parking Fire Zones” shall be established along the retaining wall in the rear of the building.
The established “No Parking Fire Zones” areas shall have the pavement painted and marked as such along with proper signage.
The established “No Parking Fire Zones” areas shall haveTitle 39 enforcement as well as under the Uniform Fire Code. Proof of Title 39 to be submitted to the Township Engineer prior to the Certificate of Occupancy.
All rear tenant doors shall be marked to identify the tenants per the direction of the Township Fire Official.
Benches and trash receptacles/ash urns shall be depicted and details provided.
Outlet structures and headwalls shall be provided with a stone veneer (Section 13-8.808). Note plans and provide details.
Pursuant to Section 13-8.501E, the applicant shall obtain capacity allocation from the Director of Public Works/Township Engineer and authorization by the Governing Body as a condition of approval.
No commercial repair work or sales of any kind shall be conducted in the parking area (Section 13-8.702S).
All electric, telephone and cable television lines shall be installed underground (13-8.500).
Any proposal for communication antennae shall comply with Section 13-7.812.
The applicant shall comply with the comments contained in the January 29, 2007 Interoffice Memo from Michael Kobylarz, Township Engineer/Director of Public Works to Dolores DeMasi, Land Use Administrator.
Pursuant to Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the applicant shall pay their pro-rata share of off-tract and off-site improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.
The applicant shall pay a mandatory development fee in accordance with Section 13-7.829.
The proposed Route 46 median striping and driveway intersection striping shall be revised to be shown as a raised island, if permitted by NJDOT.
Infill curb shall be provided along Route 46 in the vicinity of the former site driveway.
The delineation between the NJDOT curb and granite block curb shall be depicted on the plans.
Sidewalks are required along Route 46. The Planning Department and Board’s Engineer shall be copied on all correspondence to DEP involving the site, including any correspondence regarding the Route 46 sidewalk.
Two additional landscaped end islands, each containing a shade tree (2½ - 3” caliper) and low growing shrubs, shall be provided along the front building elevation.
Hairpin striping shall be provided in accordance with Section 13-8.702K. Details shall be provided.
Internal “Stop” signs shall be posted at the intersection of traffic aisles.
Provide floor plan showing warehouse in relation to loading area.
Bollards shall be provided on both sides of all loading bay doors to protect the building.
Depict concrete pad at top of stairs.
The retaining wall at the southwest building corner shall be provided with a brick veneer and cast-stone coping. Details shall be provided.
Wooden guide rail detail shall be reviewed and approved by the Board Engineer.
Split rail fence detail on sheet 9 references retaining walls 1, 4, 5, and 8. The retaining walls shall be depicted on the site plan. Basin fence and gate detail shall be provided.
The wire screen shown on the split rail fence detail shall be specified as vinyl clad and the color noted. Cedar or Black Locust lumber shall be specified along with galvanized or stainless steel fasteners. Fence post footing shall specify concrete and reduce post spacing to 8 feet on center.
Heavy landscaping shall be provided along the rear retaining wall to be approved by the Township Planner.
All walls will be protected by fence.
Pursuant to Section 13-8.809L, design calculations and details shall be submitted to the Township Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Parapet wall will be raised as needed to screen rooftop mechanical equipment from Route 46.
Due to extreme grading changes, applicant shall provide cross-sections from the southwest building corner to Route 46 and from the southeast building corner to Route 46.
General material and colors shall be noted on the architectural drawings.
Rear elevations shall be architecturally enhanced.
A roof plan shall be submitted that depicts rooftop mechanical units. An accompanying section/elevation drawing shall be submitted that shows the roof deck, mechanical units and top of parapet wall.
Sign details shall be enhanced on plans and reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
Zoning table on sheet 4 shall note that the billboard signs shall be removed prior to a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy.
No freestanding sign shall be oriented towards Interstate Route 80. Wall signs along the rear building elevation are prohibited.
Only one façade, canopy, awning or permanent window sign is permitted per occupant.
Light intensity shall be reduced although additional fixtures will be required (400-watt bulbs are unacceptable). Wall lights shall be depicted on the architectural elevations and located to be compatible with the building. Mounting heights shall be consistent between the engineering and architectural drawing.
Lighting plan shall note that the light lens shall be flush with the fixture housing and parallel to the ground (Section 13-8.707D).
Additional illumination shall be provided at both driveway entrances.
Freestanding lights shall be shown on the site plan. Pursuant to Section 13-8.707G, freestanding lights shall be aligned with parking stall striping. A note shall be provided on the freestanding light detail. Details shall note that the exposed concrete light foundation shall not exceed 6 inches above grade when located within a lawn area.
A masonry trash/recycling enclosure shall be provided.
Dimensioned plan view detail of trash/recycling enclosure shall be provided.
Local trash/recyclable removal service shall be contacted to verify that the gate opening is adequately sized for typical dumpster/containers.
Trash enclosure gate detail shall specify the requirements set forth in Section 13-8.705D and also include the following:

Minimum one inch overlap of opposite boards
Steel or galvanized hardware
Height of enclosure fence
Steel gate frame and posts
Gate canes and latches
Posts set in concrete
Landscaping along the enclosures in accordance with Section 13-8.705

The location of future trash/recycling enclosures shall be depicted and constructed upon request of the Township Zoning Officer should he determine that the original location and capacity are inadequate.
Tree Removal Plan shall be revised to specify a tree replacement requirement of 9 trees for a specimen tree to be removed at a 36” to 50” caliper. Tree numbers 15, 17 and 19 are at a 36” caliper and therefore individually require 9 replacement trees. This increases the replacement tree requirement to 67 trees since they were originally assigned 7 replacement trees per 36” caliper. Street trees cannot be classified as replacement trees.
Fencing for tree protection shall be erected along the limit of disturbance line prior to tree removal. The Township Engineer can modify the fencing if such a modification will feasibly preserve additional existing trees. The grading and soil erosion and sediment control plans shall be noted accordingly.
A Tree Removal permit shall be obtained prior to tree removal.
Pursuant to Section 13-11.13c, a performance guarantee shall be submitted in an amount not to exceed 120% of the cost of replacement trees prior to the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit.
The applicant shall comply with Section 13-8.807A and provide a double row screen planting along parking spaces. Plant spacing shall not exceed 4 feet on center.
The parking lot screen planting shall be adjusted at the easterly driveway so as not to obstruct sight lines.
Information shall be provided regarding Hoogendorn Japanese Holly and its appropriateness for a southerly exposure. An alternate shrub such as Juniper or Yew is permitted.
The proposed wet pond must be heavily landscaped to soften the view of the double tier 22-foot high retaining wall along the easterly parking area. Landscaping shall be provided between the two retaining walls along the easterly parking area.
Decorative block shall be utilized for the easterly retaining walls. Any visible wall penetrations by drainage structures shall also be addressed and detailed. The Board Engineer and Planner shall review details and material samples.
Drainage structures shall be provided with a stone veneer and landscaped (Section 13-8.808E).
Aerators/bubblers shall be provided for the wet pond. Provide details.
Basin landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Section 13-8.808.
Additional perimeter basin landscaping shall be provided (Section 13-8.808B). Additional shade trees are needed. The proposal for 2’ – 4’ high Oaks and Willows is inadequate.
Landscaping shall be provided along the outlet structure.
Enhanced architectural treatment, additional curbed planting end islands with shade trees, and heavy landscaping along the front building elevation and parallel to Route 46 along the front parking bay shall be provided
Heavy landscaping shall be provided to soften the view of the westerly side of the building where the building will be depressed roughly 5 feet below parking lot grade behind a retaining wall and to the east where the finished floor elevation is almost 13 feet above Route 46.
Two additional planting end islands containing a shade tree and ground planting shall be provided along the front building elevation.
The exposed retaining wall at the westerly portion of the building along the northerly and westerly building elevations shall be faced with brick to match the building and provided with a cast limestone cap to enhance this portion of the site.
Landscaping along the front building elevation shall be detailed.
Calculations shall be provided to verify that at least 5% of the parking lots are landscaped (Section 13-8.807C).
Curbed planting end islands shall be provided on either side of the loading/unloading area and pavement in front of the roll up doors must be striped.
Shade trees shall be provided within all of the curbed planting end islands where feasible.
Loading/unloading area along building elevation shall be replaced with a curbed planting island.
Landscape notes shall specify that “The view of utility areas, mechanical equipment, transformers and meters shall be screened from adjoining lots and street lines with landscaping. Open access to the equipment shall be maintained.” (Section 13-8.807K)
Landscaping shall be provided along the trash/recycling enclosure (Section 13-8.807L).
Heavy ground plane landscaping shall be provided within all curbed planting end islands (‘JH’ is too low).
Proposed lawn seed/sod areas shall be identified.
Applicant’s landscape architect shall pay particular attention to specifying deer tolerant plant material.
In addition to caliper, shade trees shall be specified by a typical height requirement.
Shrub size shall also be specified by height and/or spread.
Specify typical shrub spacing on the plant list.
Landscaping shall be provided to enhance driveway entrances (Section 13-8.802A and 13-8.807M). The use of ornamental grasses, flowering perennials and low growing evergreen shrubs shall be considered in the planting design.
A minimum of six (6) inches of topsoil cover should be specified for all disturbed areas (Section 13-8.803A).
Street trees shall be provided along Route 46 to the extent possible.
Typar biobarrier or approved equivalent shall be specified along the street sidewalk to prevent sidewalk upheaval by the tree roots (Section 13-8.804C).
Bloodgood London Plane Tree shall replace Greenspire Linden in order to create a more consistent street tree planting.
The landscape notes shall specify that “Only plant materials following the standards established by the American Association of Nurserymen shall be accepted. Trees shall be nursery-grown, free of disease, substantially uniform in size and shape and have straight trunks”. (Section 13-8.805)
Landscape notes shall specify “Wire and tree stakes shall be removed by the applicant after one (1) year from the date of installation. (Section 13-8.805B)
Pursuant to Section 13-8.805C, provisions shall be made to accommodate the watering of landscaping through irrigation system and/or hose bibs adequate to service the site.
Applicant shall contact the Township Planner for additional landscape comments prior to revisions.
A revised landscape plan shall be submitted and subject to the review and approval of the Township Planner.
Applicant to address all outstanding technical items in the Board Engineer’s letter dated 6/7/07.

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Kurtz seconded.

Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

BA-07-36 – CATHERINE TROUP – VARIANCE FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY LOCATED ON RT. 10, BLOCK 3802, LOT 13 IN B-2 ZONE

In the matter of Catherine Troup

Case No. BA-07-36

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: August 13, 2007

September 10, 2007

WHEREAS, Catherine Troup has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to have a variance permitting outdoor storage of monuments

for premises located at 152 Route 10 West and known as Block 3802, Lot 13 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.916D, 13-7.817E of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

The applicant is the owner of the subject premises, which is the site of the applicant’s monument (headstones) business.
The applicant is seeking ex post facto approval for the outdoor display of seven tombstones.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 5/3/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The existing and proposed tombstones/monuments were depicted on a photo attached to the application. There are seven headstones on display.
There are actually three variances needed:

Front yard setback for outdoor storage – 25’ is required, existing 15’ plus or minus (ultimately maybe reduced to 12’ to 13’ plus or minus - see conditions of resolution)
Freestanding sign (each of the tombstones constitutes an additional sign)
Continuous outdoor display

Obviously, these tombstones, which can weight as much as ¾ of a ton, are not intended to be brought in and out each night in the same manner as retail storage racks.
During the course of the public hearing, there was a colloquy between the applicant and the Board members. The Board members were seeking to have some landscaping and aesthetic improvement of the site, which has a very stark appearance.

The applicant’s business is thought to be the only “monument” business in the Township. A monument company traditionally has monuments on display for the public and provides a necessary service to members of the public.
The proposed location of the monuments, when attenuated with landscaping, will have little, if any, impact on the Zoning Ordinance and will provide an opportunity to aesthetically enhance the subject property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 13th day of August, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Applicant shall be permitted to have up to seven headstones on display at any given time. Same are to be located in the same general area as depicted on photo A-1. The applicant shall provide an “as built” location survey confirming the location of the headstones and their distance to the front yard. Same shall be no less than 12’ to 13’, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan to attenuate the appearance of the monuments and provide an aesthetic upgrade to the site. Same shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner and the location and detail of said planting shall be incorporated on the “as built” survey to be filed with the application.
The conditions of approval noted herein shall be a prerequisite for the applicant obtaining a Certificate of Approval for the monuments.

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Giardina, yes.

Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes.

BA-07-43 – MARTIN POST VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TO ADD PATIO LOCATED ON RARITAN AVE. BLOCK 6301, LOT 1 IN R-3 ZONE

In the matter of Martin Post

Case No. BA-07-43

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: August 13, 2007

Memorialized: September 10, 2007

WHEREAS, Martin Post has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition (a patio) requiring an impervious coverage variance for premises located at 17 Raritan Avenue and known as Block 6301, Lot 1 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D8 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
The applicants were proposing to construct a concrete patio as depicted on the plot plan attached to the application.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 6/12/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The applicant was proposing to remove a swimming pool and adding an area of “stamped” concrete as depicted on the plot plan attached to the application and on exhibit A-1 in evidence.
The net result of the removal of the pool and the addition of stamped concrete would result in 27.76% impervious coverage. The maximum permitted is 25%.
The applicants introduced exhibit A, which was a detailed drawing of the area in which the stamped concrete would be added.

The location of existing infrastructure on-site as well as the topography of the subject premises constitutes hardships peculiar to the premises.
The net increase in impervious coverage is de minimis.

The application is approved subject to maximum impervious coverage of 27.76% as requested. The improvements to be constructed shall be located as depicted on the exhibits attached to the application and exhibit A-1.

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley seconded.

Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Data, yes.

AGENDA

BA-07-44 – GARY ARENDT – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TO REPLACE AND IMPROVE STEPS, DRIVEWAY, WALKWAYS, SIDE WALKWAY AND RETAINING WALL LOCATED ON EAST VAIL RD. BLOCK 12003, LOT 2 IN R-3 ZONE

Ms. Robortaccio stated it appears the coverage has been corrected to show 28.97%.

Ms. Dargel suggested substituting 28.97% in the draft resolution that was prepared for tonight, page 2, Item 1.

The Board members agreed to round the number up to 29%.

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: September 10, 2007

Memorialized: September 10, 2007

WHEREAS, Gary & Barbara Arendt have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring impervious coverage relief for premises located at East Vail Road and known as Block 12003, Lot 2 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-13-713D8 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
The applicants were proposing to reconstruct a driveway, retaining wall, steps, and sidewalk. The only new addition is 45x3.5’ sidewalk on the northern side of the home.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 6/20/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer. Same was revised to 8/14/07.
Mr. Potere noted the existing impervious coverage is 29.8%. This figure is not correct, as the applicant’s testimony was that the new impervious coverage is inclusive of the “new” area, which would be 29.8%.
The applicant, at the time of the public hearing, reiterated that the total impervious coverage being sought was 29.8%. The applicant assumed that Mr. Potere simply made a mistake in calculating existing impervious coverage.
The applicant stated that adding the sidewalk and the various improvements would correct existing debilitated conditions on site (the driveway, retaining wall) and provide safe year round access to another entrance to the home.
The applicant presented photographs A-1 through A-5 in evidence. Same depicted existing conditions.

The Board finds the increased impervious coverage to be de minimis. The Board finds the need to provide safe conditions on site and additional ingress and egress clearly outweigh the deviation to the Zoning Ordinance. The benefits of granting this variance clearly minimize any negative aspect of the application.
The deviation and impervious coverage is minimal under the circumstances.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the10, day of September 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Addition to be located as depicted on the survey attached to the application. Total impervious coverage not to exceed 29% as determined by the Zoning Officer.

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley seconded.

Roll as follows: Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes.

BA-07-46 – RICHARD KEMMERER – SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON CENTER ST. BLOCK 10403, LOT 8 IN R-4 ZONE

Laura and Richard Kemmerer were sworn in.

Ms. Kemmerer said we need an addition to extend the second bedroom in our home due to a growing family. We need a side yard variance for a pre-existing condition. We will just be squaring the house off in the back.

Ms. Dargel asked what is unique about the property that it cannot be done in a conforming manner.

Mr. Kemmerer said it is an existing sideyard setback of 9.6’, and 10’ is required. We are not expanding the footprint. The siding will match the existing home.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application. Mr. Crowley seconded.

Roll as follows: Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

BA-07-41 – ENVISION MANAGEMENT – VARIANCE TO BUILD A HOME IN AN OB ZONE, LOCATED ON MARY LOUSE AVE. BLOCK 6101, LOT 5

Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant. He stated we are seeking a use variance for a single family house in the OB zone and have presented testimony that because of environmental constraints, we could not develop the lot in accordance with the zone. The primary issue that was raised was that we had the lot fronting on Raritan Avenue, and the Board and planner suggested the frontage be on Mary Louise Avenue. We have done that. We have also reduced the size of the house.

Marc Walker, engineer for the applicant, was present and stated initially we had access off of Raritan Avenue. That driveway would have gone through a wetland transition area as well as the 350 foot buffer associated with Drakes Creek. The recommendation from the Board was to eliminate that driveway and come in on Mary Louise Avenue. The driveway is much shorter, reducing impervious coverage substantially. We have also shifted the house away from the common property line with the neighbors to the northeast. The front of the house will front on Mary Louise rather than towards the neighbor’s property. If we gain approval for this layout, we will revise the plans we submitted to DEP.

Mr. Stern went over his report dated 8/7/07, updated 9/4/07:

Item 1.2 – 1) addressed 2) addressed 3) applicant agrees 4) applicant agrees 5) provided

Item 1.3 – Discussion.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED regarding screening along the common property line.

Ronald Sanna stepped forward and stated he would prefer shrubbery.

No one else stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

The applicant agreed to shrubbery.

Item 2.2 – Applicant has provide concrete monuments, and applicant agrees disturbance beyond the limit of disturbance line should be prohibited.

Item 2.3 – applicant agreed

Item 2.4 – applicant prefers to have a stairway into the attic, but agrees to a resolution condition that the attic will be restricted to just storage. Mr. Stern did not object.

Item 2.5 – agreed

Item 2.6 – to be addressed

Item 2.7 – done

Item 2.8 – done

Item 2.9 – applicant agrees

Item 2.10 – applicant agrees

Item 2.11 – Mr. Kron stated the applicant requests a waiver from sidewalks.

Mr. D’Amato said he felt it would be more logical to have sidewalks on the other side of Mary Louise where there are retail uses. Why would you need to have 300 feet of sidewalks on the other side?

Mr. Stern said there is a desire to have a comprehensive sidewalk plan for the community. This is a substantial length and this will go a long way to providing a sidewalk link to Route 10. Now that we will have a nonconforming residential structure located on this parcel, it is conceivable that if there is a gathering on the house, people will park along the road. There will be a 35 apartment building located on the adjacent parcel. If you have the sidewalks there this would get the people off the road. There is an additional 35 units that will be going up on the Renaissance Tract, and there is also Willow Walk. The Board has the discretion to waive the sidewalks, but this is the one chance you get to have sidewalks here.

Mr. Kron said there are sidewalks on the other side. If people are going to Route 10, they can cross over. That is where most of the retail area is.

Mr. Crowley stated he feels there should be sidewalks there. People will be wanting to go up to Route 10 from the residential units.

Ms. Dargel said about one-third of the area where the sidewalks would go is in the transition area and mitigated wetlands. If you were to put sidewalks would you still be able to mitigate those wetlands.

Mr. Walker said the sidewalks would go within the right-of-way, and we are not allowed to do any buffer averaging outside of our property. We would have to file for a separate permit.

Ms. Robortaccio said she feels there should be sidewalks. This would be a clear path to Route 10.

A poll of the Board resulted in 5-2 in favor of sidewalks.

Item 2.12 – Waiver granted. Four street trees provided.

Item 2.13 – Applicant agreed

Item 2.14 – Applicant agreed

Ms. Dargel said the plans indicate a 5-bedroom home, and she can only see 4 bedrooms on the architectural plans.

It was determined this will be addressed by the architect.

Mr. Stern went over Mr. Hansen’s report dated

Item 1 – The home will have a 2-car garage.

Item 2 – Access has been changed to Mary Louise Ave.

Item 3 – Applicant agreed

Item 4 – Will comply

Item 5 – Mr. Walker said they have applied for the LOI and the Transition Area Averaging

Item 6 – No longer applicable

Item 7 – Concrete monuments are proposed along the limit of disturbance. There will be a formal conservation easement submitted for approval.

Item 8 - additional spot grades have been added to the plans

Item 9 – 11 - agreed

Item 12 – addressed

Item 13 – agreed

Item 14 – agreed

Item 15 – will comply, if feasible, subject to soil testing.

Item 16 – 19 – agreed

Marjorie Roller, architect for the applicant, was sworn in.

Ms. Robortaccio pointed out that the architectural plans have the incorrect Block and Lot numbers.

Ms. Roller stated that will be corrected. She gave her educational and professional background and was accepted as an architect. She referred to Sheet A-1 of the architectural plans. In answer to Ms. Dargel’s question, this is a 5-bedroom house. The room marked Guest/Study should actually say Guest Bedroom/Study. She stated since the last hearing, the height of the house has been reduced to 1 ½ stories and we have reduced the pitch of the roof so that the elevation on that side appears much lower to the neighbors. The apartments on the adjacent properties are 4 stories.

Ms. Roller submitted a rendering of the front elevation dated 9/10/07 (marked A-2). She stated the front elevation will be stucco and stone and the side elevations would be vinyl siding. The colors will be neutral.

Mr. Kron said we are asking for a use variance. The environmental constraints basically prevented us from trying to develop the property in the OB zone. What we propose won’t have any adverse impact on the zone scheme and will fit well in there. We will give a conservation easement for the balance of the property. We have reduced the size of the house, and have agreed to the Board’s conditions regarding landscaping.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

Ron Sanna stepped forward. He asked if this all depends upon what the DEP says, and what happens if DEP doesn’t approve it?

Mr. Wiener stated if it’s impacted by any other agency, including DEP, that materially changes it, it would have to come back to the Board.

Joanne Sanna was sworn in. What does the 190 foot dimension referr to?

Ms. Robortaccio said it is the distance from Ms. Sanna’s house to the property line of the proposed lot.

Ms. Sanna asked what the height of the house will be.

Ms. Rollo stated it will be 28 feet to the mean of the roof line, and 35 feet to ridge.

Ms. Sanna said the house is not in keeping with the size of the other homes. When we bought the home, we were told there would be no building in back of our home and that it would be woods. It was wetlands. I believe this is decreasing the value of our home. That house will still be seen from our backyard, regardless of the trees or shrubs. We put on a large deck so that we could enjoy the view. I don’t know if we would have bought the home if we knew someone could build there.

No one else stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel said any property is buildable. This is commercially zoned. If there weren’t a residence there, it could be a business. I would think a residence would be more desirable.

Ms. Robortaccio said at this point in time, very few lots are not buildable.

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application subject to the items agreed to and those subject to approval by the Planner and the Engineer; evergreen screen along the east elevation of the house to be reviewed and approved by Mr. Stern; sidewalks are required per ordinance; subject to approvals from all agencies regarding the stream. Ms. Kinback seconded.

Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

Mr. Kurtz and Ms. Robortaccio stated they feel this is a better alternative than a commercial building on this lot.

BA-07-49 – DAVID REINKNECHT – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PORCH AND 2^ND FLOOR ADDITION, LOCATED ON PAUL DR. BLOCK 1601, LOT 5 IN R-3 ZONE

David Reinknecht was sworn in.

Michael Moschella, architect for the applicant, was sworn in.

Mr. Reinknecht stated they moved into the neighborhood about 6 years ago. The house needs new siding, new roof, etc. Since we moved in, many houses have done improvements. We would like to get additional space out of the house, and are looking to add a second story. We would like to take the existing front porch and extend it across the proposed house. The reason we need the variance is that the existing enclosed front porch doesn’t meet the front setback requirement, nor does the house itself.

Mr. Moschella said the existing front corner of the house is already 2.3 feet over the requirement. The existing enclosed front porch is 5.47 feet over the 35-foot setback. The proposed porch will run across the front of the house to achieve the Craftsman Bungalow look. The proposed porch will be 8.92 feet over the setback line at the front left side of the home, however, that is only 3.45 feet further than the existing porch that will be removed. The addition and porch will comply with all bulk requirements. The proposed width of the porch is 6’8”. The reason for that is in order to put furniture there and maneuver around the furniture. The zone provides that the front yard setback can be reduce to up to 25’ if adjacent properties were that much far forward. We were not able to obtain surveys from adjoining properties. We are conscious of the fact that no structure would ever be closer than 25’. This addition is 1.08’ behind that 25 foot line. The porch will provide for a nice curb appeal.

Mr. Data stated he feels this would fit very well in the neighborhood.

Colorized Sheet PA1 of the architectural plans was marked A-1; Colorized Sheet PA2 was marked A-2.

Ms. Dargel asked if the bay windows were flush windows, would that reduce the width of the porch?

Mr. Moschella stated even without them, we would like the porch to be that depth so that you have room to maneuver at the front door. The homeowner has expressed a desire for those windows. He would like to put plants in the windows.

Mr. Reinknecht said he is a former cook and would put basil, herbs, etc. in the windows. Also, the windows go aesthetically with the style of the house.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

Michael Daley, 39 Paul Drive, was sworn in. He stated he lives across from this project. On our curve on Paul Drive, 6 of the 9 homes are putting additions on. I support this application because it fits into the neighborhood. I don’t see any problem with the porch.

No one else stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application. This is a very nice project and I don’t see any adverse affects. Ms. Kinback seconded.

Roll as follows: Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

5 minute recess.

BA-07-48 – FRANK CASEY – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS AND BUILDING COVERAGE FOR GARAGE LOCATED ON MEKEEL DRIVE, BLOCK 3704, LOT 20 IN R-3 ZONE

Frank Casey was sworn in. He stated he would like to put a 2-car detached garage in the back yard. There is not enough room to put it on the side.

In answer to questions from Ms. Dargel, Mr. Casey said there is no existing garage. The screen porch is no longer there.

Ms. Dargel said the proposal is for 10% over the permitted impervious coverage. If you brought the garage farther forward, you could probably reduce the coverage.

Mr. Casey said that would be alright with him.

Mr. Stern said you might conflict with stairs on the house. Also, you need at least 20 feet of driveway to line up with the garage doors for access to the garage. It would be very tight if you bring it up much farther.

Mr. Data asked if Mr. Casey considered building a smaller garage.

Mr. Casey said the cost would not be that much different, and I could have two cars in there or one car and storage. This is the standard size for a two-car garage.

Mr. Data asked if there has been thought of using a different type of driveway material to mitigate the impervious coverage.

Mr. Casey said we could use a different material such as pavers for the new portion of the driveway.

Ms. Dargel said she would prefer to see the whole driveway done in one material. I would prefer to see the garage moved as far forward as possible.

Mr. Kurtz suggested a drywell.

After discussion, it was determined the garage location is acceptable, subject to the applicant cutting off the corner of the paving adjacent to the garage and installing drywells for roof runoff.

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the application subject to there being no further additional structures; driveway will be tapered to the rear of the home and a curve will be provided that will eliminate the northernmost corner of the driveway opposite the rear of the house; design for drywell to capture roof runoff from garage to be reviewed and approved by Township Engineer prior to building permit; total impervious coverage not to exceed 35%. Mr. Giardina second.

Roll as follows: Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, no; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

The meeting was adjourned by motion.

Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

lm/

Minutes of 6/11/07

Minutes of 8/13/07

RESOLUTION

Approved: August 13, 2007

Prepared by Ritter & Plante Associates, LLC – revised 4/10/07, revised 5/11/07

Prepared by Albert Dattoli, Architect

Approved: August 13, 2007

Approved: August 13, 2007

Live Edit