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

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Scott Meyer presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman read the “Open Public 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.




Ms. DeMasi introduced Michael Shadiack and stated he has been appointed as a Class 2 Board member.




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.




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.




#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. 




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.




No one stepped forward.




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.



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.




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. 




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.




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.




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.




  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.




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.




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.




No one stepped forward.




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