A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of
Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Scott Meyer
presiding. After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman read the “Open Public
Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Meyer,
Richard Zoschak, Charles Bautz, Jim Rilee, Gary Behrens, Larry Sweeney, Michael
Shadiack, Joseph Schwab, Ms. DeVincentis. Ms. Voyce arrived at 7:35 p.m.
ABSENT: Steven Alford.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Tom Bodolsky.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary.
Minutes of 11/3/04
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, abstain; Mr. Schwab, abstain; Mr. Bautz, yes;
Ms. DeVincentis, abstain; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
AGENDA
Ms. DeMasi introduced Michael
Shadiack and stated he has been appointed as a Class 2 Board member.
LETTER OF EXTENSION OF SOIL
RELOCATION FOR JOEL SANTORO
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the extension. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr.
Sweeney, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Lisa Voyce arrived at 7:35 p.m.
S-30-05 – ROXBURY 2002 LLC / GEMINI – SOIL RELOCATION PERMIT LOCATED ON RT.
46, BLOCK 9505, LOT 9 IN LI/OR ZONE
Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented
the applicant.
Mr. Nusbaum said the application
was submitted on 12/20/04. Mr. Bodolsky’s report dated 1/11/05 indicates it went to a number of recipients, but was received by the client on January 17th.
That is not the report before the Board today. The report before the Board is
dated 1/19/05. It is our belief we are complete, compliant, and we are anxious
to receive the soil moving permit, because we work under very severe time
limitations. This application is solely for a soil moving permit. We believe
we will show proof we comply with the requirements of the ordinance in letter
and spirit.
Mr. Bodolsky said the first
report which the Board has, dated 1/11/05 indicated the application was
incomplete because it didn’t have calculations in a form we could follow and
check. The applicant submitted figures that we could go over tonight, but we
don’t have the ability to check the figures. The unusual aspect of the site is
that the applicant has suggested we have strictly balanced cut and fill
situation, which in the Board’s estimation would make their decision
simplistic. I did write a report today. Item #2 questions whether the
applicant is going to have no soil moving on the roadways. That question
involves the potential importation of pipe bedding, roadway base material. The
information supplied by the applicant indicates there would be 5,000 cy of
stone brought to the site for pipe bedding alone. Perhaps the applicant could
present an overview, and tell us why he feels this would be a balanced cut and
fill, etc.
Mr. Nusbaum said it bothers us
that, if this was a position taken by the Board’s engineer on his review, this
could have been resolved on an engineering basis by phone. The Board’s
interest is to know how material comes to the site and goes off the site and
the quantities. We had responded to Mr. Bodolsky’s 1/11/05 report as soon as Bohler Engineering got it.
Mr. Bodolsky said one option
would be for the Board to approve an application subject to Mr. Bodolsky
subsequently reviewing the soil quantities. The one complication is that
they’re projecting a balanced cut and fill. We do have to make a provision for
the route of travel in the event it is found they do need to import some
materials.
Grayson Murray, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in. We have utilized software called to analyze the
earthwork conditions. It is our objective to prepare a balance earthwork
condition. We have submitted a color printout of the results of the software
analysis. There is a chart that documents the study areas, and it includes
materials for the concrete slab of the building, the different pavement types,
topsoil stripping. We have taken conservative assumptions on the quantities,
and have determined total volumes. With our grading design, we have a lot of
flexibility. We had determined finished floor elevations that would provide
for the re-use of all the materials that we cut from high spots. I don’t know
of any other program than the software we used.
Mr. Nusbaum said Mr. Bodolsky’s
report suggests there may be importation of certain stone, and that building
slabs usually require the use of some form of select fill base, as does the
construction of roadways and pavement. Will this require the importation of
any materials?
Mr. Murray said no, in his
opinion. We have also consulted with our geotechnical engineer, and their
conditions indicate there are some cobbles on the property. We have suggested
the use of a crusher on site to re-use that material. It can be crushed to the
standards of pipe bedding. We have supplied that information to Mr. Bodolsky.
We will continue to supply any information requested.
Mr. Bodolsky asked roughly how
much earthwork cut, fill, and total earthwork is anticipated.
Mr. Murray said cut is about
124,000 cy; fill is about 122,000 cy; topsoil stripping is about 22,000 cy.
Mr. Bodolsky said based on the
testimony, if that is acceptable to the Board and it is also acceptable that
you leave the confirmation of cut and fill quantities to my office, we should
proceed, and should make it a stipulation that there will be no travel on the
roadways.
Mr. Nusbaum said he doesn’t believe
the ordinance deals with bringing in stone if needed. We wouldn’t want a
restriction against bringing in stone.
Mr. Germinario said the ordinance
does apply to any type of fill. He suggested a route of travel is specified
tonight in the event stone has to be brought in.
Mr. Murray said the route will be
Route 46 between County Concrete and the site.
Mr. Rilee suggested the trucks
should go north out of County Concrete, Dell Ave north to Berkshire Valley
south to Route 46. I would be hesitant to give the engineer carte blanche
to sign off on this. We need to discuss hours of operation, etc. Dell Ave.
and Berkshire Valley Rd. have lots of residents. I feel we should put some
limitations on any approval.
Mr. Zoschak asked if this will
need 5,000 cy of stone fill.
Mr. Murray said that is for the
pipe bedding. We also have an allowance to use the cobbles on the site for
crushing. We don’t know the exact quantity of cobbles on site.
Mr. Zoschak said when the stone
crushing operation is done, they should use best management practices to keep
the dust level down.
Mr. Meyer asked that the
applicant address Mr. Bodolsky’s report.
#3 – Mr. Murray said the DEP has
asked that we control the amount of sediment to be released into the stream.
We will use the installation of silt fence and hay bales.
Mr. Bodolsky said there is a
stipulation in the general permit that relates to the fact the site is
tributary to Ledgewood Brook and Drakes Brook. There is a prohibition about
introducing sediment into the stream during those periods of time. It is not a
prohibition on the activity, but a prohibition on siltation. It is a sensitive
site.
#4 – agreed
#5 – will comply with ordinance
for hours of operation, and no Sunday activity
#6 – Soil erosion measures have
been approved by Morris County Soil Conservation. The area along Old Traveled
Way is an upland area. If necessary, we will implement measures to control it.
Ms. Voyce asked that the
applicant check to see what the intervening vegetation is.
Mr. Bodolsky said it is all
wooded.
#7 – agreed – Mr. Nusbaum said he
has spoken to Mr. Bukiet and prepared a construction easement, which he sent to
the Board Attorney. There were changes recommended, and those have been sent
to Mr. Bukiet, and we will not go onto his property until he signs the
easement.
Mr. Germinario suggested a
condition requiring Mr. Nusbaum to submit the executed construction easement to
Mr. Germinario for review and approval.
Recommendations:
#1 – addressed
#2 – County Concrete
#3 – Discussion. If there are
any more than 50 trucks, the application would return to the Board.
Ms. Voyce said there is also the
issue of noise for the trucks, and for stone crushing. Regarding trucking
hours, I would suggest it be outside of the rush hour.
Mr. Meyer said in this case, they
would be traveling in the opposite direction.
Mr. Murray said we will know
whether we need stone once the earth moving takes place on site.
Discussion.
Ms. Voyce had concerns that there
may be 30 acres of bare land at one time without any stabilization.
Mr. Murray said Soil Conservation
will be there weekly for inspections.
Ms. Voyce said we have a working
relationship with Soil Conservation, and with the Board’s permission, she would
like to contact them and let them know our concerns.
The Board members agreed.
Ms. DeMasi said when there is a
pre-construction meeting, we invite Morris County Soil to come, and with a
project of this size, I would assume they would come.
After discussion, it was determined
there will no limit on the number of trucks, but there will be no soil movement
on Saturdays.
Items 4, 5, 6, 7 – agreed
Mr. Rilee suggested before the
movement of rocks, plans should be submitted to the Board Engineer so that he
can assess the fee.
Mr. Murray said different
portions of the property will yield different quantity of cobbles. It is an
unknown. We can make an effort to make an estimate. It is difficult to
project.
After discussion, Mr. Nusbaum
stated the applicant will agree to deposit an amount of money with the Township
which can be billed against when they know the exact number of truck
movements.
#9 – applicant will submit $900
to the Township.
Mr. Meyer said there was a
question regarding the noise from the crushing of the stone.
The applicant agreed to place the
crushing operation as far east as possible. It will be shown on the plans, and
will be addressed during the pre-construction meeting.
Mr. Nusbaum stated in the report
there is a reference to “unconditional site plan approval”. We have attempted
to meet all the requirements of the preliminary site plan approval. There will
be a complete submission on the 28th of this month. I personally
have delivered all the easements for signature. The only situation is the
situation with Mr. Bukiet. It doesn’t work for us to be subject to an
unconditional site plan approval. We want very much to get started on the
project.
Mr. Bautz asked how much cobble
there will be and how long it would take to grind up.
Mr. Murray said we don’t know.
The crusher will be operated as needed and during the rough grading period. I
would think the time frame may be about 6 to 8 weeks. I don’t believe it would
be an all-day operation. There will be no crushing on weekends and holidays.
Mr. Bodolsky said regarding #11,
several months ago the applicant had requested permission to begin foundation
work on the building. I was asked if that would be acceptable, and I said no.
Regarding the Bukiet easement, our plans show the roadway can’t be constructed
without Mr. Bukiet’s consent. There may have to be adjustments to the
roadway. There are other conditions that may require grading changes to the
site.
Mr. Nusbaum said the road is not
going to be constructed on Bukiet’s property. The purpose of the easement is
to permit us to work from his property on the construction of the road on our
property.
Mr. Murray said there is grading
on the Bukiet property and that was the basis of the request for the easement.
The alternative was to relocate the Old Traveled Way extension to the south and
eliminate the need for disturbance.
Mr. Nusbaum said we won’t do any
earth movement there until we have the easement from Bukiet.
Mr. Bautz said what if we don’t
get that?
Mr. Nusbaum said then the road
will be entirely on our property.
Mr. Bautz asked if that would
change anything with the DEP.
Mr. Bodolsky said probably not.
Mr. Rilee asked how far along
they are on the preliminary approval.
Mr. Bodolsky said about 1/3 of
the comments are pending.
Mr. Murray said we will submit
further information pursuant to the comments in Mr. Bodolsky’s 12/23/04
letter. I have reviewed Mr. Bodolsky’s letter to see if any of the items would
affect the soil quantities. We intend to resubmit information on 1/28/05.
Mr. Rilee said this application
has been given a lot of leeway. I believe we can carry this application for
two weeks.
Mr. Bodolsky said you are getting
into frozen ground conditions now, and there is no reason for the rush.
Mr. Nusbaum said the revised
submission will be in on 1/28/05. The easements will be submitted as well.
Mr. Germinario said if there is a
condition in this resolution that they have to have unconditional site plan
approval, why do they have to come back to the Board?
Mr. Rilee said they may not have
to, but if they have to, they will.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the application with all stipulations agreed to; application will
comply with unconditional site plan approval. Ms. Voyce seconded.
Discussion.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
S-10-04 – ETEL REALTY –
SITE PLAN FOR RETAIL LOCATED ON RT. 10/MARY LOUISE AVE. BLOCK 6305, LOT 4 &
5 IN B-2 ZONE
Ms. DeVincentis, Mr. Shadiack and
Mr. Zoschak have listened to the tapes of the previous hearing and are eligible
to vote on this application.
Attorney Gary Mizzone represented
the applicant. He gave an overview of the proposal, stating the intention is
to demolish the tattoo parlor and add to the existing Crib & Teen City. We
intend to accommodate up to 3 retail tenants, and they will be permitted retail
uses. There are a few minor variances required primarily for pre-existing
conditions. At the last hearing there was an overview of the plan.
Mr. Stern said the applicant is
now complying with the 35 foot buffer into the residential district, and the application
will comply with the hours of operation ordinance for properties adjoining a
residential district.
Grayson Murray, engineer for the
applicant, referred to Exhibit A-3 and stated we propose to demolish the
existing vacant building, and to add 3,900 square feet to the north of the
existing Crib & Teen City. We will modify the access driveways, and will
consolidate driveways to have one driveway off Route 10, and one driveway off
Mary Louise Avenue. There will be two-way drive isles; 40 parking stalls,
where 41 are required. We have room for the additional stall, but elected not
to provide it because it comes at the cost of a minor encroachment into the
residential buffer. We provide a conforming loading area to the west of the
building for box trucks and vans. The site is designed to accommodate a small
wheelbase tractor trailer. The significant improvement is that we eliminate
several nonconformities, have added a lot of landscaping, and conform with the
buffer requirements to the residential area. The present impervious area is 7
feet from the residential property. We have changed that to conform to the 35
foot requirement. Overall we are making a dramatic aesthetic improvement and
are eliminating some of the current nonconformities.
Mr. Murray discussed the
variances and waivers:
·
Parking – 41 required, 40 proposed
·
20-foot setback from Route 10 right-of-way is required; 15 feet
proposed, 0 feet existing – we are replacing about 7,000 square feet of
impervious area with landscaping. More landscaping will be provided. The
corner of the handicap parking stall east of the facility encroaches about 5
feet.
·
end islands – 9 foot width required, less than 9 feet proposed,
requiring a waiver.
Mr. Stern said that dimension is
minor. Some portions of the island are more than 9 feet, others are close
·
Variances for front yard setback – 40 feet required – 33.5 feet
existing – 38.7 feet proposed
·
Setback to Mary Louise – 40 feet required, 34.7 feet existing and
proposed.
Mr. Zoschak asked if there is
proposed fencing along the residential zone.
Mr. Murray said the applicant
would agree to put in a fence.
Mr. Murray said there is an
overhang on the Crib & Teen building. The proposed building has a simple
façade. The encroachment is for a small area.
Mr. Germinario said he doesn’t
believe these setback variances require the granting of a variance. In both
cases the existing nonconformity is either being maintained or being
de-intensified.
After discussion, it was
determined a variance is required on the Route 10 side for the 12 square foot
area.
Mr. Murray said the impervious
coverage existing on site is 66% currently, and we propose a reduction to
53.5%, 60% permitted. There is an increase in green space of 7,000 square
feet.
Ms. Voyce said there seem to be a
number of items in the reports that can be addressed at a staff meeting.
Mr. Stern said they have really
turned the project around, and they just need to address the reports.
Mr. Rilee suggested the Board
members also need an opportunity to ask questions.
Ms. DeVincentis said she is very
concerned about the entrance onto Route 10.
Mr. Behrens said he also has
concerns about that.
Mr. Murray said the entrance on
Route 10 is necessary. It promotes better on-site circulation, and also DOT
wants a main access onto the highway and an alternate access point to a public
street. The concern about the proximity of the driveway to a non-delineated
deceleration lane I can understand, but the existing condition has a curb cut
at the southeast corner, and another curb cut at the northeast corner, where we
are improving the setback of the driveway to the north, which would provide
additional queuing. The DOT has issued a Letter of No Interest on the driveway
design.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Ken Abrahamson was sworn in. He
said his concern is they have been broken into 3 times currently. I applaud
the improvements to the property, but it will create more traffic and the
possibility of increased vandalism in the area. I would recommend there be
fencing installed.
Mr. Meyer said the applicant has
agreed to the fencing.
Mr. Zoschak asked if Mr.
Abrahamson would have any objection to chain link fencing.
Mr. Abrahamson said no.
Mike Andrisano, 9 Riggs Avenue,
was sworn in. He said this plan is an improvement over the last plan. I
applaud the Board for doing their diligence in working with the applicant and
the residents. It is a good plan. I believe there is another exit from the
building next to this. I don’t know how you could solve that problem. When I
try to get out of this road in the morning, and people run the stop sign off
Main Street, it is very congested. Maybe if they made Main Street one way
going up two blocks would solve the congestion problem and allow the two entrances.
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Bautz asked if the driveway
off Route 10 could be one-way-in only.
Mr. Murray said the DOT would
look for an exit there to comply, because of the number of trips. We can look
into it.
Mr. Bautz asked if we could ask
them.
Mr. Murray said it would not
conform. They would look to have exiting traffic at two locations. We will
look into it.
The application was carried to
2/2/05.
M-1-05 – VILLAGES AT
ROXBURY – SITE PLAN FOR 186 HOMES LOCATED ON SHIPPENPORT RD. BLOCK 11201, LOTS
1, 2, 3 IN R-6 ZONE
Attorney Steven Tripp represented
the applicant.
Discussion. It was determined
the application will be carried due to time constraints tonight.
The applications for amended
preliminary site plan and for soil movement were carried to 2/16/05. No
further notice required, at 7:30 p.m.
An extension of time was granted
to the end of February.
S-5-05 – TREBOUR CYCLE –
1445 RT 46 LLC – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR CYCLE STORE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 8602,
LOTS 43 & 44 IN B0-2 ZONE
Attorney Tom Zelante
represented the applicant.
Steve Cooper was sworn in.
Kevin Northridge, engineer for
the applicant, was sworn in. He gave his professional and educational
background for the Board and was accepted as a professional engineer.
Mr. Northridge addressed the
1/18/05 report from Pequest Engineering:
#1 - Mr. Cooper agreed to contact
the Township Engineer, and agreed to Mike Pellek’s recommendation – to be done
as soon as possible - in the meantime, it should be dug out
#2 – agreed – to be bonded and
completed by April 1st.
#3 – agreed – to be bonded and
completed by April 1st.
#4 – concrete pavers acceptable
by Board – striping will be done by April 1st if required by Mr.
Bodolsky and Mr. Stern.
#5 – agreed – to be bonded and
completed by April 1st
#6 – agreed – to be bonded and
completed by April 1st.
#7 - foundation plantings were
done as a field change - additional plantings will be bonded.
#8 – awning will be installed on
a Monday or Sunday – will not be done during operating hours. Will be
installed within the next 3 weeks. – to be bonded.
#9 – easement submitted – to be
confirmed with Mr. Bucco
#10 – lots have been merged and
verified by Tax Assessor
The applicant addressed the
outstanding items in Mr. Stern’s report:
#1 – agree – to be bonded
#6 – agree – to be bonded
One hose bib is in rear of
building, one is on the east side of building.
The applicant agreed to all other
items in Mr. Stern’s report.
Regarding the fire hydrant, it
was determined they will dig out deeper around the hydrant and will put on the
extension as soon as possible. To be bonded and completed by 2/2/05.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the application with all stipulations agreed to; all items agreed to be
bonded; fire hydrant bonding by 2/2/05; C.O. to be granted once the dedication
of easement is verified by Township Attorney; payment of fees. Mr. Zoschak
seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
There was a 5 minute recess at
9:50 p.m.
S-2-05 – CLEARVIEW CINEMA –
AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR THEATER LOCATED ON RT. 10 ROXBURY MALL, BLOCK 5004, LOT
7/8 IN B-3 ZONE
Attorney Joel Kobert represented
the applicant. He stated we need to first obtain an extension on this
application.
Mr. Germinario stated the MLUL
does allow the Board to extend the preliminary approval for up to two years. As
I am aware, there were no changes in design standards since their approval.
There was a change with respect to floor area ratio requirements. They were
never complying with that more stringent standard of .27. The Board can either
extend, or force the applicant to go to the Board of Adjustment to seek an
F.A.R. variance and amended site plan. In making the decision the Board should
weigh the hardship and fairness and equity of doing that against the public
interest involved in enforcing the more stringent F.A.R. requirement. Mr.
Stern could address that.
Mr. Stern said when this was
originally approved the floor area ratio approved was at 29.6. The B-3
district allowed 30%. With the current proposal, they are reducing the number
of seats, F.A.R., increasing residential setback from R-3 district, less
parking required, reducing number of wall signs. There is a lessening of
intensity. It is up to the Board to determine whether or not they feel it is
appropriate to grant the extension. I believe this is an important community
element, and in 2000 when it was approved, it was recognized that for the
theater to remain, it was necessary for them to be competitive and have the
additional theaters. This proposal has less theaters than originally approved.
Mr. Kobert said we are requesting
the extension retroactively, and with the two-year extension, that would take
us to April 26, 2005. We would have to do some site activity by that time.
Mr. Stern said during this
process, they tore down a two-story bank building.
Mr. Zoschak said he would have no
problem with the extension retroactively.
Mr. Rilee asked if this can be
done retroactively.
Mr. Germinario said it is allowed
by the MLUL.
Mr. Rilee asked what the
likelihood is of this being built.
John Hathaway, Vice President of
Facilities and Real Estate for Clearview Cinemas, was sworn in. He stated
there were corporate events that affected the timing of this. We represent a
shift toward a much more proactive approach specific to real estate and
development. We are 100% behind this and are ready to move as soon as we get
it approved. We are currently earmarking funds to remodel 20 of our theaters.
None are in the process of being built right now.
Mr. Kobert said under this
extension, we would only be extended to 4/26/05.
Mr. Germinario said after that
they would be outside the period of immunity after that. At that point, the
new zoning requirements would apply to them. They would have to be in the
ground.
Ms. Voyce said her concern is
that the groundwork may start and then it would sit for another 3 years.
Mr. Hathaway said the intention
is to open by Christmas.
Mr. Sweeney made a motion to
grant the extension. Mr. Rilee seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Sweeney,
yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Mr. Kobert said we received the
reports of the experts and believe we can comply with most of the items. We
are accepting the parking requirement. We are not changing anything in the
parking area. We are changing from the curbside to the actual theater itself.
Also, we are reducing down to 10 theaters and there will be architectural
changes to the overall façade. Most of the testimony will be architectural and
engineering. One of the theaters will now be a party space, which will be tied
to the movie theater.
Mr. Zoschak said he would like
discussion on the handicap stalls. Also, there is a board-on-board fence,
which the adjacent resident would like to see changed to a chain link fence.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
The application was carried to
2/2/05. Extension granted to 3/1/05.
New Business
-Mr. Meyer suggested new Board members consider attending
seminars offered by the NJ Planning Officials.
-Mr. Stern stated we are required
to conduct a reexamination report every 6 years. The master plan committee has
prepared a draft document and it is time to adopt a document. We would be giving
the Board about a month to review the document, and would schedule a special
work session meeting on 2/17/05. If the revisions are not significant, we
would want to move to adopt the document on March 16th.
Mr. Zoschak suggested sending a
copy of the document to Ms. Urgo as she has been very involved.
Special meeting scheduled for
2/17/05 at 7:00 p.m.
Meeting adjourned by motion at
10:30 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary
lm/