A regular and reorganizational meeting of the Planning
Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott
Meyer, Richard Zoschak, Jim Rilee, Larry Sweeney, Gary Behrens, Charles Bautz,
Steven Alford, Joseph Schwab, Lisa Voyce.
ABSENT: Teresa DeVincentis.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary.
REORGANIZATION
After a salute to the Flag, Ms.
DeMasi asked for nominations for Chairperson.
Mr. Zoschak nominated Scott
Meyer. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
There were no other nominations.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr.
Sweeney, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Mr. Meyer assumed the Chair and
asked for nominations for Vice Chairperson.
Mr. Rilee nominated Larry
Sweeney. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
There were no other nominations.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Mr. Meyer asked for nominations
for Board Secretary.
Mr. Rilee nominated Dolores
DeMasi. Mr. Alford seconded.
There were no other nominations.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Bautz,
yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes.
Mr. Meyer read the “Open Public
Meetings Act”.
Mr. Meyer welcomed Mayor Zoschak
back to the Board.
Resolution #1
RESOLUTION
TO PROVIDE
ANNUAL NOTICE OF MEETINGS
WHEREAS,
the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury, Morris County, New Jersey, must provide annual
notice to all regular meetings to be held by said Board during the calendar
year 2005.
NOW,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the schedule of regular meeting dates annexed
hereto as Exhibit A, be and hereby declared to be the official list of dates of
regular meetings to be held by the Board for the calendar year 2005, being the
first Wednesday and third Wednesday of each month.
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said meetings shall commence at 7:30 p.m; unless
otherwise called by the Municipal Building, 1715 Route 46, Ledgewood, New Jersey
EXHIBIT A
January 5, 2005 July 6, 2005
January 19, 2005 July 20, 2005
February 2, 2005
February 16, 2005 August 3, 2005
March 2, 2005 September 7, 2005
March 16, 2005 September 21, 2005
April 6, 2005 October 5, 2005
April 20, 2005 October 19, 2005
May 4, 2005 November 2, 2005
May 18, 2005 November 9, 2005
June 8, 2005
December 7, 2005
June 22, 2005
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mayor Zoschak seconded.
Discussion. Corrections noted
and made above.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Resolution #2
RESOLUTION SELECTING A PUBLIC
PLACE FOR POSTING NOTICES AND INDICATING THREE PAPERS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE SENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the township of
Roxbury, Morris County, New Jersey, is required to select a public place for
the posting of notices of all regular and special meetings; and
WHEREAS,
said board must provide notice of all regular and special meetings to at least
one (1) newspaper, which must be the official municipal newspaper.
NOW,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Public place for the posting of notice of all regular
and special meetings of the said Board be the bulletin board located within the
Municipal Building of this municipality located at 1715 Rt. 46, Ledgewood, New
Jersey; and
BE
IT RESOLVED that all notices of the meetings of this Board be furnished to the
following newspapers, one of which will be the official newspaper as designated
by the Township Council.
Daily
Record
Star
Ledger
Roxbury
Register
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr.
Alford, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Resolution #3
RESOLUTION
“NOTICE
OF MEETINGS” FEES
WHEREAS, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et. Seq. known as the “Open
Public Meetings Act” provides for the fixing of a reasonable charge to be paid
by any person requesting notification of meetings of the Planning Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board
of the Township of Roxbury that the sum of $40.00 (forty dollars) is hereby
fixed as the fee to be paid by any person requesting notice at its business
office.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Ms. Voyce seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr.
Alford, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Resolution #4
RESOLUTION TO RETAIN A PLANNING BOARD
ATTORNEY AND CONSULTING ENGINEER
WHEREAS, there
exists a need within the Planning Board for the retention of an Attorney and
Consulting Engineer; and
WHEREAS,
the funds are available for these purposes; and
WHEREAS,
Section 40:55D-24, Article 15 of the Municipal Land Use Law states that the
Planning Board may employ, or contact for, and fix the compensation of legal
counsel, other than the municipal attorney, and experts, and other staff and
services as it may deem necessary, not exceeding the amount appropriated by the
governing body for its use; and
WHEREAS,
the Local Public contracts Law (N.J.S.A.40A:11-1 et. Seq.) requires that notice
of the resolution authorizing the award of contracts for “Professional
Services” without competitive bids must be publicly advertised.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury, as
follows:
1. The
Chairman and Secretary of the Board are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into an agreement with the following consultants for the year 2005.
2.
Tom Germinario is retained to serve as Counsel to the Board during the calendar
year 2005
3.
Pequest Engineering Company is retained to serve as Consulting Engineering to
the Board during the calendar year 2005.
4.
These contracts are awarded without competitive bidding as a “Professional
Service” under the provisions of the Local Contracts Law because Planning
Consultant services, Engineer Consultant services and Legal services are
rendered by persons authorized by law to practice their recognized professions
and because such services are of a qualitative nature as will not reasonably permit
the drawing of specifications or the receipt of bids.
5.
A notice of this resolution shall be published in the official newspaper as
designated by the Township Council as required by law within ten days of its
passage.
6.
This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to retain
Tom Germinario at the same rate as 2004. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
retain Pequest Engineering as Consulting Engineer for 2005. Mr. Alford
seconded.
Mr. Meyer said there was a letter
from Mr. Bodolsky regarding his fees, requesting a $5 per hour increase. By
way of research, Dolores contacted several neighboring municipalities for the
rates of their engineers, and it appears that Mr. Bodolsky’s request is in line
with those of surrounding municipalities. Regarding the amount billed to
escrow accounts vs. the general fund of the Township, his billable hours to the
Planning Board amounted to $438.00. About 95% of the hourly rate is taken
from the escrow funds rather than from the Township.
Discussion.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schwab, Ms. Voyce,
yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes.
Resolution #5
RESOLUTION
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
WHEREAS, the members of the Planning Board of the
Township of Roxbury desire to provide the best possible service to the Township
of Roxbury; and
WHEREAS,
members of the Planning Board are expected to conduct themselves with respect
to matters before the Board in such a manner as to avoid all possibility of a
conflict between their private interests and their public duty.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the present and new members of the Planning Board
of the Township of Roxbury that they will act in a manner to provide the best
possible service to the Township of Roxbury and to avoid all conflicts between
their private interests and their public duty and to that end have signed
Certifications as to all properties that are owned by members of the Planning
Board in Roxbury Township or in other communities which abut the Township of
Roxbury and said Certifications will be open for public inspection at the
Municipal Building during normal business hours.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr.
Sweeney seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr.
Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Ms. Voyce,
yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Minutes of 11/3/04
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, abstain, yes; Mr. Schwab,
abstain, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Mr. Meyer asked for volunteers
for the Master Plan Committee.
Mr. Rilee, Mr. Zoschak, Ms.
Voyce, and Mr. Meyer volunteered.
Mr. Meyer asked for volunteers
for staff review meetings.
Mr. Zoshcak, Mr. Behrens and Mr.
Bautz volunteered.
RESOLUTIONS
LETTER OF EXTENSION
FOR LEDGEWOOD SHOPPING
CENTER
ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: December 1, 2004
Memorialized: January 5, 2004
IN THE MATTER OF LEDGEWOOD
CIRCLE SHOPPING
CENTER
EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
BLOCK 6502, LOTS 1 & 2
APPLICATION NO. S-4-01
WHEREAS,
Ledgewood Circle Shopping
Center (hereinafter known as the “Applicant”)
obtained preliminary site plan approval from the Roxbury Township Planning
Board (hereinafter known as the “Planning Board”) on 10/10/01
(memorialized 11/7/01); and
WHEREAS,
the Applicant has requested from the Board an extension of one year pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 40:55D-49c; and
WHEREAS,
a public hearing was held on 12/1/04, no notice being required; and
WHEREAS,
the Board has balanced the public interest in favor of implementing the new
requirements of the Land Development Ordinance against the hardship to the
Applicant, and has determined that the requested extension for the preliminary
approval for one year should be granted.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby grant the
requested extension of the Applicant’s preliminary site plan approval for an
additional period of one year pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-49c.
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 12/1/04.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution with a change to make the approval for a one-year
extension. Ms. Voyce seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Meyer,
yes.
LETTER OF EXTENSION FOR
RAINBOW MANAGEMENT
ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: December 1, 2004
Memorialized: January 5, 2005
IN THE MATTER OF RAINBOW
MANAGEMENT CONTRACTING, LLC
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
FILING MINOR-SUBDIVISION DEEDS OR PLAT
BLOCK 4102, LOT 2
APPLICATION NO. M-2-04
WHEREAS,
Rainbow Management Contracting, LLC (hereinafter known as the “Applicant”)
obtained minor subdivision approval from the Roxbury Township Planning Board
(hereinafter known as the “Planning Board”) on 3/4/04 (memorialized 4/7/04); 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 190 days pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-47f.
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 12/1/04.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee,
yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr.
Meyer, yes.
S-23-04 – TGI FRIDAYS –
AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR SIGNS LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 6502, LOT 2 IN B-3 ZONE
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: December 1, 2004
Memorialized: January 5, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF LEDGEWOOD CIRCLE SHOPPING CENTER/TGI FRIDAYS
AMENDED
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPLICATION
BLOCK
6502, LOT 2
APPLICATION
NO. S-23-04
WHEREAS, TGI
Fridays (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury
Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning Board")
for amended site plan approval on October 5, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the
application was deemed complete on December 1, 2004; and
WHEREAS, a
public hearing was held on December 1, 2004, notice being required, at which
time the Planning Board rendered its decision on the application; and
WHEREAS, it
being determined that the Applicant has complied with all of the rules,
regulations and requirements of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance and
that all of the required provisions of the compliance have been filed with the
Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the
Planning Board has made the following findings and conclusions based upon the
testimony and documentary evidence produced by the Applicant and by the
Planning Board staff:
1. The subject property consists of 13.2 acres
located in the B-3 Planned Shopping Center District. On October 10, 2001, the
Planning Board approved a preliminary site plan including a 6,802 square foot
freestanding TGI Friday restaurant (memorialized November 7, 2001). On June
26, 2002, the Board granted amended preliminary site plan approval with
variances to modify Applicant’s architectural plans and signage (memorialized
July 24, 2002). This was part of TGI Fridays nationwide prototype, intended to
project a more upscale image. Sign area on the front façade was reduced from
90 square feet to 27 square feet and from 90 square feet to 87 square feet on
the side elevation. The modified plans obtained variances from Sections
13-8.905B and 13-8.916E1 for more than one sign. In addition to the newly
configured façade signs on the front and right side elevations, the Board
allowed additional signs on the canopy facades at the front and side elevations
and an etched/decal logo on the double entry doors. The Applicant now seeks
amended preliminary site plan approval with variances for the exterior
remodeling of TGI Fridays signs, awnings and exterior treatments.
2. In support of its application, the Applicant
submitted revised architectural plans consisting of 5 sheets prepared by Allen
Industries bearing a revision date of 10/5/04. Applicant also submitted awning
detail and layout drawings comprising two sheets prepared by The Chism Company
dated 9/15/04 and new and existing exterior elevations comprising two sheets
prepared by WD Partners dated 10/6/04. A report concerning the application was
submitted by the Township Planner, Russell Stern, dated 10/20/04.
3. At the public hearing of December 1, 2004, the
Applicant was represented by Paul Nusbaum, Esq. The Applicant’s architect,
Darren Deffner, testified that the proposed architectural changes are needed to
implement a nation-wide change in TGI Friday’s building prototype. He stated
that the proposed design currently proposed was part of a marketing effort to
restore design elements, such as candy-striped awnings, which are closely
identified with the Applicant’s public image. He testified that there would be
no increase in the number of signs and that overall sign area was being
reduced. Mr. Stern suggested that any further major architectural changes,
such as to the façade color, should require Board approval.
The Chairman then opened the hearing to public
comments, and there being none closed the public portion of the meeting. A
motion was made to conditionally approve the application based on the
recommendations contained in the report of Mr. Stern as modified by the Board’s
deliberations, which motion was duly seconded and favorably acted upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the
amended preliminary site plan as described in the drawings referenced
hereinabove. In connection with this approval the following variance is hereby
granted.
A. A variance is granted from Ordinance Sections
13-8.905B and 13-8.916E1 to allow modification of additional façade signs which
were the subject of previously granted variance relief, consisting of two
façade signs, two canopy signs and one etched/decal double door sign.
This approval is subject to the following terms and
conditions:
1. Revised architectural drawings shall be submitted
for the review and approval of the Township Planner. Said drawings shall
address the Township Planner’s recommendation that an additional awning be
installed on the easternmost façade.
2. Any further architectural design changes
significantly affecting the style of the building, such as change of façade
color, must be approved by the Board.
3. All conditions of the preliminary site plan
resolution memorialized 11/7/01 and the amended approval memorialized 7/24/02
shall remain in effect except as expressly modified herein.
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 December 1, 2004.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes.
COMPLETENESS
Primax Properties – Advanced Auto – Site Plan On Rt.
46, Ledgewood
Mr. Stern said this application
is for a vacated Texaco property on Route 46. It is a proposal for an auto
parts store. They are coming in for site plan and have provided all
information required for completeness. No completeness waivers are requested.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to deem
the application complete. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
The application was scheduled for
2/2/05.
Dell Ave. Properties – Site Plan On Dell Ave. Block 6803, Lot 1, 2, 3
Mr. Stern said this is a site
plan application for a 22,000 square foot one-story light industrial building
with offices in front and storage/warehousing/contractors, etc, and is similar
to what Mr. Petillo has constructed along Dell Ave. A waiver is requested for
horizontal and vertical coordinates. The recommendation is to defer the issue
to the public hearing
Discussion.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to deem
the application complete with waiver granted for completeness only. Mr.
Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz,
yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
The application was scheduled for
2/16/05.
AGENDA
LETTER OF EXTENSION FOR
SUBDIVISION FOR KENVIL GROUP
Discussion.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to grant
a two-year extension until April 2005. Ms. Voyce seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Bautz,
yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Mr. Meyer announced Application
M-10-04, Kenneth Jacobsen, will not be heard and is carried to 2/2/05.
Attorney Michael Shivietz was
present for the DeRock application. He said there are still issues
raised by the staff that need to be resolved, including the easement for right
of discharge. We would like to have this carried for 3 months.
The Board agreed.
The applicant granted an
extension of time to the end of April. Re-notice will be required.
The application was carried to
April 6, 2005.
Mr. Meyer announced Application
S-21-04 – Glenn Bott will not be heard and is carried to 2/16/05.
S-10-04 – COMMERCE BANK –
FINAL SITE PLAN FOR BANK LOCATED ON RT. 10/MAIN ST. BLOCK 6303, LOT 6 & 7
IN B-2 ZONE
Mr. Behrens said his
understanding was that a C.O. would be issued after final site plan approval.
The bank has been in operation for several days. He asked Mr. Germinario why.
Attorney Douglas Henshaw
represented the applicant.
Mr. Germinario said it is his
understanding Mr. Henshaw was in contact with the Department of Community
Affairs who then responded by issuing a letter dated 12/23/04 to Mr. Nyari, the
Construction Code Official instructing him that it was their understanding the
project was complete and all final inspections had been performed and approved,
and therefore directing him to issue a Temporary C.O. which he did. They are
now operating under the Temporary C.O., and will not get a permanent C.O. until
they receive final site plan approval. It was Mr. Bucco’s belief and mine that
the DCA may mistakenly have believed there was a final site plan approval. We
don’t know that for sure.
Mr. Stern said DCA issued this
without speaking with Mr. Germinario or Mr. Bucco.
Mr. Henshaw said that is
basically correct. The law on Temporary C.O.’s changed in 2002, and the thrust
of the memo was that if life safety systems are in place, the DCA has the
authority to order Temporary C.O’s to be issued. We did try to get discussion
with Mr. Bucco. Before contacting the DCA, the bank had achieved all permits
and certificates with reference to the completion of the construction of the
bank. We were attempting to establish a dialog with the town and asked for a
temporary C.O., but with it being the holiday season, we were unable to get
hold of a lot of people to get that done. DCA wrote to Mr. Nyari who was on
vacation, and the letter was issued. I don’t think DCA was mislead regarding
final site plan. The issue was that the statutory scheme in place in New
Jersey contemplates that an applicant can seek preliminary and final approval
at the same time if they wish, as long as they bond their improvements. This
municipality does not favor that methodology, which put us in a position where
we were unable to have a meeting with the Board. We had a multimillion dollar
investment, and DCA answered the inquiry by telling us they had the right to
order that certificate to be issued. The function of a Temporary C.O. is to
assure the life safety issues are in place. The week prior to the issuance of
a Temporary C.O., Mr. Nyari had already issued all the permits, certificates
and stickers confirming that was the case. I have had a discussion with Mr. Germinario
and Mr. Bucco’s office about procedures that the municipality follows. I think
there has been a bit of an admission by the municipal attorney that this may be
something they may want to modify to make sure the statutory scheme and what
DCA does lines up with what the Township does. The first think is public
safety, and we think we adhered to that.
Mr. Behrens said the Planning
Board didn’t know about it. We have a function, and we didn’t even know what
was going on.
Mr. Henshaw said the point is
that if someone builds a building and they have all their systems in place, in
spite of the fact the Board has not issued final approval, DCA has the right to
issue the directive, and that is what they did.
Mr. Behrens said if you read the
reports from our staff, it doesn’t appear everything was approved.
Mr. Rilee said we understand
Commerce Bank’s influence on State government. I believe this was done
arbitrarily and capriciously because there was no follow up by DCA with anyone
in this municipality, including our Township Manager, Township Attorney, or
Township Clerk. I have a problem with that aspect. I agree the Township bears
some responsibility by the official who signed off on it who also did not
follow up to contact any of those people. The Township Attorney is sending a
letter to DCA and others stating we did not have to sign off on that.
Mr. Henshaw said he spoke to Mr.
Oosdyke from Mr. Bucco’s office every day to keep him informed as to what was
going on. Mr. Oosdyke was very responsive, and I assure you I told him
everything that was going on in terms of DCA, the fact Mr. Nyari was on
vacation, etc. It wasn’t dune surreptitiously.
Mr. Rilee said we found out about
it after it was signed off on. The manager is looking into the time line as
well.
Mr. Zoschak asked if our
ordinance stacks up to the State’s ordinances. Should we be looking at
changing our ordinance?
Mr. Germinario said our ordinance
is consistent with State regulations. The purpose of the as-built review in
final approval is to insure there are not public health and safety issues that
need to be completed. We do allow for bonding for items not safety related.
Our review is consistent with State regulations.
Mr. Meyer asked that the
applicant address the reports from the staff.
Mr. Henshaw said we prepared a
response to Mr. Stern’s reports. We have no problem with complying all the
issues in the reports from Mr. Stern and Mr. Bodolsky. The only thing we did
not address is the issue regarding construction of a headwall. It does not
have an artistic face or surface on it. It is within the detention basin. The
wall faces the daycare to the west.
Brett Skapinetz, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in.
Mr. Meyer asked about the
headwall issue.
Mr. Stern said this is a winged
headwall and is visible from the daycare on Main Street. It is not a feature
that was present during public hearings or resolution compliance reviews
without our knowledge. Code requires a stone veneer, landscaping. It is in violation
of the code, but because it went in after the Board’s review, we did not get an
opportunity to review it in terms of the appropriateness of the structure.
Mr. Skapinetz stated the wall was
put in, and was done as part of an internal check. We felt taking the wall
from a flat wall integrated into the retaining wall, that the wing wall would
provide a better means of discharging the water from that spot and not erode
the side walls of the basin. We had intended to include that in the final
submission to Mr. Bodolsky, but it was our mistake. We felt it was a better
engineering technique, and it helped us to fix a metal grate which was going
help keep the trash from going from the system into the above ground basin. As
to what the ordinance requires, you can see it from the daycare center. That
is the only visible piece. We will put in additional landscaping. We are
willing to work with Mr. Stern.
Mr. Bodolsky said he disagrees
that it is needed. It is purely an aesthetic issue. Attaching a rack to a
flat headwall can be done and is done all the time. The structure is there.
There are two approaches the Board can take – to allow the structure to stay
with or without veneer. I believe it could be trimmed back to the wall with a
section of the wall taken out with a flat headwall placed there. It is purely
aesthetics that would be enhanced. I don’t have a stand on it.
Mr. Stern said you can cut off
the view to the daycare over time as the evergreens grow. Aesthetically it
would be effective. Eliminating the wall would mean a major disruption to the
site, and may be to some detriment to the existing retaining wall.
Mr. Zoshcak said if they want to
treat the wall with a decorate face and screen it, it would not be a problem.
Mr. Meyer asked about the life
span of the veneer.
Mr. Skapinetz said it depends on
how it is constructed. It should be the life of the structure. It will be
maintained.
Mr. Bodolsky suggested a sketch
be submitted as to how it will be anchored, showing the type of veneer,
landscaping around the headwalls and perimeter and verify screening of Valley
National Bank and the daycare. The applicant agreed.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Stern’s report
#2 - done
#3 – discussion – sign at either
corner and stripe the pavement – Mr. Stern to review
#4 – will be replaced with panel
of same color
#5 – merger deeds have been
submitted
#6 – to have power there for
maintenance equipment
#7 – agree
#8 – discussed
#9 – not applicable
#10 – agree
#11 through 24 – agreed to
landscaping and other items – to be completed by May 1st – items
will be bonded.
Mr. Stern asked if the root
barrier has been installed.
Mr. Skapinetz said it will be
done once the trees are moved. Landscaping for headwall will be completed by
May 1st and will be bonded.
The applicant addressed
outstanding items in Mr. Bodolsky’s report:
#4 – done
#7 – digital copy will be
submitted tomorrow – as-built and site plan
#8 – agreed
Mr. Rilee said regarding the
headwall, is it gaudy?
Mr. Henshaw said it is about 4’
high.
Mr. Skapinetz said if you are
standing on Route 10 you can’t see the wall, and you can’t see it from Main
Street. You can see it from the back yard of the daycare center. It is on an
angle and faces toward Valley National Bank.
Mr. Bodolsky said it is a misuse
of that kind of headwall in his opinion.
Mr. Stern said it isn’t the best
thing, but it is better with veneer and landscaping.
Mr. Rilee asked if it can be
removed.
Mr. Bodolsky said he believes it
can be removed.
Mr. Skapinetz said you would
still have a flat headwall.
Mr. Zoschak asked if the façade
can be colored to match the sides and blend in.
Mr. Skapinetz said yes.
Mr. Zoschak asked if signs will
be kept off the center island.
Mr. Stern said they have been
noticed about those signs.
Mr. Sweeney made a motion to
approve the application. Headwall will remain and treatment be reviewed and
approved by Mr. Stern and Mr. Bodolsky. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Sweeney,
yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Behrens, no; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
S-23-04 - CVS PHARMACY –
SITE PLAN FOR BUILDING LOCATED ON HOWARD BLVD. BLOCK 6502, LOT 2 IN B-3 ZONE
Mr. Zoshcak said he listened to
the tapes of previous hearings.
Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented
the applicant. He stated he believes the only issue outstanding is related to
the stacking and movement of the delivery truck.
Mr. Bautz said there was also the
issue of moving the dumpster area.
Mr. Zoschak said there are two
lanes without a pass thru lane. I am concerned with the fact there is no way
to see the lanes before you get into the queue. Is there some way to have
signage?
Mr. Bautz said they move through
very quickly, and if there is a delay the pharmacist would move the person
through.
Gary Dean, traffic expert for the
applicant, was sworn in. He gave the Board his educational and professional
background and was accepted as an expert in traffic engineering. He stated he
has specific knowledge about the CVS operations.
In answer to questions from Mr.
Nusbaum, Mr. Dean said about 10 years ago, the concept of drive through
pharmacies came into being. The operational problem was that often times there
is the need to consult with a pharmacist. Often times there is a dialog that
takes some time. What was happening was with only one drive through lane, it
resulted in a back-up. As a general rule, the pharmacy would rather have the
customer come into the store, however, the drive through was requested by customers.
The twin drive through provides for the innermost lane for prescription pick-up
and consultation while there is a customer there, the second lane would be
used for prescription drop-off. We have studied the CVS sites and their
competitors in the field. Over one hour, 6 people used the drive through.
During that time, people were waiting in the lane for 5 to 7 minutes. What we
saw was a maximum stack of 3 vehicles. During that time, customers did have
the ability to come into the outer drop off lane. They are there for 15 to 30
seconds, and they leave the site. 95% of the time the outer lane is open and
serves as the bypass. If, under the extreme circumstance, there was someone in
that lane, they would be there for a matter of seconds. At the pharmacy, 5 to
6% of the traffic uses the drive through. A customer can’t shop through the
drive through. It is just for prescriptions.
Mr. Behrens said that was the
same testimony we had from the pharmacists.
Mr. Dean said on the loading
issue, Mr. Byszewski presented a revised exhibit which is colored and marked
A-8. He added an overlay to that exhibit and was marked A-9. We have
widened the width of the access isle by 2 feet, an increased the radius
opposite the loading area approaching the access isle that leads to Howard
Boulevard which permits a truck to make two movements – a left into the access
isle and then a backing maneuver into the loading area. That can now be
accomplished without going over the curbs. It allows the truck, when pulling
forward, to proceed due north. The CVS is served by one tractor trailer per
week and is on premises for ½ hour to 45 minutes. All other deliveries to the
site are by single unit smaller trucks who can use the loading area and are
much smaller.
Mr. Dean said with the changes,
we have also moved the trash enclosure to the service core which allows better
opportunities for screening and keeps it in the business end of the building.
There will be rollout dumpsters. The majority of refuse at CVS is cardboard.
The remaining refuse is more like typical household garbage.
Mr. Behrens asked where the other
smaller deliveries would be made if not in the loading area.
Mr. Dean said UPS or FedEx would
use the front door. The regular venders would use the loading area.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Bodolsky to
comment on these new proposals.
Mr. Bodolsky said the change is
simplistic and works only for a wheelbase 50 vehicle.
Mr. Dean said that is what will
be seen at this site.
Mr. Bodolsky said he had prepared
two sketches. The second sketch shows where the vehicle needs to start his
backup movement to negotiate the loading area. The old approach was superior
from the standpoint where we are not backing across an intersection. The truck
will have to use more of the intersection to make the turn. Why can’t the
building be moved further to the south?
Mr. Dean said the proposed
entrance is in the southwest corner and that is where they want to concentrate
the highest amount of customers. If we move the building farther south, we
would eliminate a row of parking there and it would be less convenient. The
alternative is to have the truck pull up alongside the loading zone. The only
difficulty is that there is a light fixture that may have to be reset.
Mr. Bodolsky said with the
current circulation pattern, it requires the truck to maneuver across the most
westerly amount of stalls. That didn’t occur under the old plan, however,
there is testimony the Board should weigh about the frequency of deliveries.
Mr. Dean said an alternative
would be to eliminate the loading area altogether and they would have to wheel
the merchandise in. My understanding of the original design for parking was
that the Board approved using the western row of parking to facilitate the
Friday’s delivery truck. The expectation was that the same pattern would
happen with CVS at the same hours as Friday’s so that traversing the western
row of parking would not create a problem.
Mr. Bodolsky said it is an
exit-only driveway. If it were a high speed entrance coming in off Howard
Boulevard I would be more concerned.
Mr. Dean said the CVS
representatives can address the hours of delivery.
Mr. Nusbaum said the company
representatives have testified they can control the deliveries.
Mr. Rilee said he has a problem
with the truck making the turn across the isle.
Mr. Meyer agreed.
Mr. Dean said it is a CVS truck,
and the store operator and distribution operator are the same. They know the
store. The store opens as early as 8:00 a.m. and I would believe there would
be someone there within at least ½ hour before that.
Mr. Rilee said he is not sure the
loading dock is necessary.
Mr. Bodolsky said Mr. Dean had
suggested omitting the bumpout area.
Mr. Dean said the screen wall and
landscaping would be eliminated. The truck only comes in one day a week.
Mr. Nusbaum said he asked the
district salesman about this, and he says they have no problem controlling the
times of deliveries. Taking away the loading dock would take away the ability
to have the palletized deliveries. This is a once a week function, and it is
only for a brief period of time.
Mr. Sterphone stepped forward.
He stated he would be in charge of scheduling and there would be a 2 to 3 hour
window. I would set the window from 5 to 8 a.m.
Mr. Zoschak asked if there are
daily deliveries of drugs.
Mr. Sterphone said we do have an
outside vender who would deliver a small amount of items that people would need
for the next day.
Mr. Bautz said it is a very busy
site. We need to have a definitive time frame.
Mr. Meyer said they have agreed
the hours can be restricted.
Mr. Meyer asked for Mr. Stern’s
input on the location of the dumpster.
Mr. Stern said since this
dumpster is just for wrappings, plastic, lunch garbage, etc, can it be located
within the walled service area?
Mr. Dean said the difficulty
would be that it wouldn’t leave enough room to get the merchandise in. It is
also a secure area.
Discussion.
It was determined the dumpster is
acceptable where shown on the current plan. Proper screening will be done,
subject to review and approval from Mr. Stern.
A poll of the Board resulted in
the unanimous determination the dumpster location as shown on the plans is
acceptable. Mr. Stern will review the location, and it will be pushed back
slightly if need be.
After discussion, a poll of the
Board as to the loading area as shown on the plan resulted in a unanimous
determination the location is acceptable. Tractor trailer deliveries will be
made between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., weekdays only.
The applicant agreed all
deliveries will go through the loading dock, other than UPS and FedEx.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Alford made a motion to
approve the application subject to the items agreed to. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Mr. Rilee said this plan is far
better than the previous application on this site. There are some concerns
about the delivery aspect, but this is much improved.
Roll as follows: Mr. Alford,
yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr.
Schwab, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
There was a 5 minute recess at
9:35 p.m.
S-10-04 – ETEL REALTY –
SITE PLAN FOR RETAIL LOCATED ON RT. 10/MARY LOUIS AVE. BLOCK 6305, LOTS 4 &
5
Attorney Gary Mizzone
represented the applicant.
Grayson Murray, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in.
There was discussion as to
whether or not this application should be re-noticed.
Mr. Germinario said he still
thinks there should be re-notice. This is just an overview, and I believe
notice should be given for the next hearing.
Mr. Meyer asked for an overview
of the project only.
Mr. Murray referred to a plan
entitled exhibit dated 11/29/04, Site Plan Rendering (marked A-3). He said the
proposal is to upgrade the site with demolition and construction of a retail
building to be built adjacent to the northern elevation of the existing crib an
teen city building. the intent is to create a single faced. The building will
be partitioned for tenancy. The tenants are unconfirmed and will comply with
the ordinance and not create any new variances or waivers. We will modify
accesses on Route 10 and Mary Louse Avenue. There will be a single
right-in/right-out. There will be no significant increase from DOT standards.
There will be a two-way driveway throughout. 40 parking space are proposed,
where 41 are required by ordinance. That requires a waiver. The site will
accommodate the additional space but is not practical due to the proximity
relative to the entrance driveway. We could add a space in the northwest
corner, but that results in a very small encroachment into the residential
buffer line. It is about a 10 square foot encroachment. We can provide a
space at the expense of the landscape island. We believe the 40 spaces
addresses the parking needs.
Mr. Murray said there is a
loading space of 15 x 60 off the western building elevation.
Mr. Murray handed out a reduced
copy of the exhibit for the Board members.
Mr. Murray said regarding vehicle
circulations, the site is designed for the box truck, but circulation for a
larger truck is possible. A vehicle can enter and circulate counter clockwise
or clockwise. We don’t anticipate there will be 40 wheelbase deliveries. As
to setbacks, the proposed building is set back 38 feet. 40 feet is required,
however there we are matching the building corner of the existing Crib and Teen
facility. Some of the benefits of the proposal is that we can increase the buffer
area to the R-3 zone from 7 feet to a conforming 35 feet. We have reduced
parking and impervious area in the front yard. We now propose a 15 foot
setback. 20 feet is required by ordinance. Our impervious coverage is reduced
from 66% to 53.5% which is conforming to the ordinance which allows 60%. As to
grading and drainage, we will provide a drainage plan for review. As to
lighting, we propose 5 freestanding and 5 building mounted fixtures. We want
to provide safe and effective pedestrian and vehicle circulation. There are
comments in the reports regarding lighting levels and we would agree to reduce
the intensity somewhat. Landscaping is proposed with 515 plantings, including
35 shade trees. We have provided some on the subject property instead of the
right of way. The intent is to beautify both corridors. There are 5 evergreen
trees, 237 evergreen shrubs, 59 deciduous shrubs, and 180 perennials. There
are design waivers and variances required. A waiver is required for the number
of parking spaces; 20 foot setback of parking to right of way; waiver for end
island planting minimum width; variance for front yard setback.
Mr. Behrens said the issue of
entrance and exit on Mary Louise Avenue should be further addressed.
The application was carried to
1/19/05.
New Business – Mr. Stern
said the Master Plan document is completed, and he has made the changes, and
the fully formatted draft version will be distributed to the Master Plan
committee next week, and a copy will be given to Board members.
Voyce asked about the Buildout
Analysis.
Stern said the time frame for
that is June or July.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 10:15 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary
lm/