A regular meeting of the Planning
Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Vice Chairman Scott Meyer presiding. After a salute to the Flag, the
Chairman read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott
Meyer, Gary Behrens, Steve Alford, Michael Shadiack, Charles Bautz, Therese
DeVincentis, Lisa Voyce. Mr. Schwab arrived at 9:50 p.m.
ABSENT: Jim Rilee, Richard
Zoschak, Larry Sweeney.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary.
Presentation to Robert Badini
Mr. Meyer presented Mr. Badini
with a plaque thanking him for his many years of service to the Planning Board.
Minutes of 12/1/04
Mr. Behrens made a motion to approve
the minutes. Ms. DeVincentis seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Behrens,
yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr.
Meyer, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
LETTER OF EXTENSION FOR SUBDIVISION OF KENVIL
GROUP
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION OF
MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: January 5, 2005
Memorialized:February 2, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF KENVIL GROUP, LLC
EXTENSION
OF TIME FOR FILING MINOR-SUBDIVISION DEEDS OR PLAT
BLOCK
2403, LOTS 2 and 3
APPLICATION
NO.M-1-03
WHEREAS, Kenvil Group, LLC
(hereinafter known as the “Applicant”) obtained minor subdivision approval from
the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the “Planning Board”)
on 4/30/03; 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 a period of 2 years 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 January 5, 2005.
Ms. Voyce made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Alford seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Voyce, yes;
Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
S-10-04 – COMMERCE BANK –
FINAL SITE PLAN FOR BANK LOCATED ON RT. 10/MAIN ST.
BLOCK 6303, LOTS 6 & 7 IN B-2 ZONE
ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: January 5, 2005
Memorialized: February 2, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF COMMERCE BANK/NORTH
FINAL
MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL
BLOCK
5201, LOTS 4, 5, 10 and 11
APPLICATION
NO. S-1-05
WHEREAS,
Commerce Bank/North (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to
the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning
Board") for final major site plan approval on January 5,2005; and
WHEREAS, the
application was deemed complete on 1/5/05; and
WHEREAS,
public hearings were held on 1/5/05, no 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 Development 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 55,831 square
feet located in the B-2 District. On 12/10/03,
Applicant received preliminary major site plan approval with variances to
construct a 3,669 sq. ft. one-story bank with 4 drive-through lanes and 25
parking spaces. The Applicant is now before the Board seeking final site plan
approval.
2. In support of its application, the Applicant
submitted as-built plans consisting of 11 sheets prepared by Bohler Engineering
bearing revision dates of 11/29/04 – 12/16/04. The Applicant also submitted an
as-built survey prepared by Kenderian Zilinski bearing a revision date of 12/14/04. Reports
concerning the application were submitted by the Township Planner, Russell
Stern, dated 12/30/04 and by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky,
dated 12/23/04 and 12/30/04.
3. At the public hearing of 1/5/05, the Applicant
was represented by Douglas Henshaw, Esq. Applicant agreed to comply with the
recommendations in the reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky. Regarding the
winged headwall for the detention basin, Mr. Stern noted that this feature was
not present during the preliminary approval hearings or resolution compliance,
and that the ordinance requires that such a structure have a stone veneer
finish. It was agreed that a stone veneer would be installed and that the
headwall would be screened with landscaping from the day care center on Main
Street.
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 reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky, as
modified and supplemented in the course of the hearings, which motion was duly
seconded and favorably acted upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the final
major site plan as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove.
This approval is subject to the following terms and
conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
1.
The detention basin headwall shall be modified to include a stone veneer and
shall be landscaped to screen it from the adjoining day care center on Main
Street. Both shall be done to the satisfaction of the Township Planner. The
stone veneer shall be bonded and shall be installed by 5/1/05. The landscaping
shall be bonded and shall be completed by 5/1/05.
2.
Two “No Parking” signs along the front building elevation shall be modified in
size and location to the satisfaction of the Township Planner.
3.
The backside of two internally illuminated directional signs contain language
advertising “America’s Most Convenient Bank.” Such signs shall be removed and
replaced with an opaque bronze panel to match the sign box.
4.
The merger of lots 4, 5, 10 and 11 shall be verified by the submission of filed
merger deeds (Preliminary Condition #4).
5.
Additional soil cover and sod shall be provided on the exposed detention basin
FES pipes.
6.
The following landscaping items shall be bonded and completed by 5/1/05:
a.
Three street trees shall be installed along Main Street between sidewalk and
curb as specified on sheet 6 of the approved preliminary site plan (revised
8/17/04).
b.
Typar root barrier, or equal, shall be installed along Main Street as specified
on sheet 6 of the approved preliminary site plan (revised 8/17/04).
c.
A total of 19 ‘CS’ shall be installed along the two FES as specified on sheet 6
of the approved preliminary site plan (revised 8/17/04).
d.
A ‘CBF’ columnar shade tree shall be installed in the end island opposite the
northeast building corner and in the end island containing the monument sign as
specified on sheet 6 of the approved preliminary site plan (revised 8/17/04).
e.
A double row planting of ‘ICC’ shall be completed by the northeasterly parking
lot corner as depicted on sheet 6 of the approved preliminary site plan
(revised 8/17/04).
f.
A new 2½ to 3” caliper ‘ARAF’ shall be located between sidewalk and curb to the
west of the Main Street entrance.
g.
A number of White Oakes appear in marginal condition. Proof of a landscapers
Maintenance guarantee should be provided to assure their replacement if needed
in the spring.
h.
Lumpy sod shall be rolled or replaced.
i.
Undersized evergreen trees between Main Street and employee parking shall be
replaced with specified tree height.
j.
Shrubs damaged in the vicinity of the former temporary electric generator shall
be replaced.
k.
Sod installation shall be completed between the Route 10 sidewalk and curb.
l.
In lieu of a missing ‘TOE’ and three ‘JS,’ three ‘JCSG’ shall be located to the
east of the detention basin gate and in front of the split rail fence.
m.
Damaged ‘BTCP’ and ‘SJLP’ along the building shall be replaced.
n.
The northerly ‘PAIB’ planting parallel to Main Street shall be mulched.
o.
The grass strip between the sidewalk and curb disturbed by construction of the
storm sewer shall be topsoiled, seeded, and mulched.
7.
A digital copy of the site, as-built, and utility plans shall be submitted for
inclusion in the Township’s GIS system. (Preliminary Checklist.)
8.
An updated As-Built drawing reflecting completed construction shall be
submitted by 5/1/05.
9.
The following conditions of preliminary site plan approval are reiterated:
Condition #1: The drive-thru speakers shall comply
with the Township’s noise ordinance so as not to be heard at the property
boundaries.
Condition #2: Except for armored vehicles, all
deliveries shall be by step-van utilizing a regular parking stall.
Condition #6: Trash and recyclables shall be picked
up from the site on a daily basis.
10.
Except as explicitly provided herein, all conditions of the Preliminary Major
Site Plan Approval Resolution memorialized 1/24/04 shall remain in full force
and effect.
11. This approval is subject to the payment of all
appropriate fees and taxes.
12. Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days
and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6
months of the date of memorialization. Failure on the part of the Applicant to
satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral
of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval
null and void.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting
of 1/5/05.
Ms. Voyce made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Bautz seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Voyce, yes;
Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Alford, 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
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: December 1, 2004
Memorialized: February 2, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF LEDGEWOOD CIRCLE SHOPPING CENTER LLC/CVS
AMENDED
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL
BLOCK
6502, LOTS 1 AND 2
APPLICATION
NO. S-22-04
WHEREAS,
Ledgewood Circle Shopping Center LLC/CVS (hereinafter known as the
"Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board
(hereinafter known as the "Planning Board") for amended preliminary
site plan approval on 9/10/04; and
WHEREAS, the
application was deemed complete on 12/1/04; and
WHEREAS, a
public hearing was held on 12/1/04, 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 Development 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 Shopping Center District. On October 10, 2001, Ledgewood
Circle Shopping Center received preliminary major site plan approval
(memorialized 11/7/01) for an expansion and significant upgrade of the existing
shopping center. The approval included a 6,802 square foot freestanding TGIF
restaurant, a 17,300 square foot freestanding retail building with
drive-through along Howard Boulevard, and a 7,650 square foot retail addition
to the westerly side of the existing strip center. Furthermore, the existing
diner would be replaced with a new 5,840 square foot restaurant. The
application was approved under 3 phases.
On January 28, 2004 the Planning Board granted final
major site plan approval with conditions for Phase I which includes TGI
Fridays.
On June 26, 2002 the Planning Board granted amended
preliminary major site plan approval to replace the approved 5,840 square foot
restaurant with a 2,350 square foot, 44-seat White Castle fast food restaurant
with a drive through lane. Additionally, the previously approved 7,650 square
foot (102’ x 75’) mall addition would be modified to a 7,980 square foot (114’
x 70’) auto parts store. Six parking stalls and a small loading area formerly
located behind this retail area would be replaced with a 32’ x 70’ loading
area.
The Applicant now seeks amended preliminary approval.
The previously approved 17,300 square foot multi-tenant freestanding retail
building with drive-through along Howard Boulevard will be replaced with a
13,013 square foot (excluding a 2,219 square foot second floor for storage)
CVS/Pharmacy. Two drive-through lanes will be provided with one for
prescription drop-off and the other for pick-up of prescriptions and various
sundries. The loading area will be relocated from the easterly elevation
opposite Howard Boulevard to the northerly elevation opposite a major access
drive into the site. Nine new parking spaces are located along the southerly
elevation and three spaces have been eliminated southeast of the building to
accommodate a dumpster enclosure.
The prior approval allowed a 0.23 floor area ratio
(0.27 permitted by Ordinance) and an impervious coverage of 80% (65% permitted
by Ordinance). These figures will be slightly reduced.
2. In support of its application, the Applicant
submitted amended site plan drawings consisting of 35 sheets prepared by SESI
Consulting Engineers bearing a revision date of 11/18/04. The Applicant also
submitted 4 sheets of elevations and floor plans by Daniel L. Russell, AIA,
revised 11/18/04, 1 sheet of elevations and floor plans by The Billow Group
revised 9/10/04, and 2 sheets comprising an outline plan and exterior
elevations by the Larson Design Group revised 10/19/04. The Applicant also
submitted a letter by SESI Consulting Engineers dated 11/18/04. Reports
concerning the application were submitted by the Township Planner, Russell
Stern, dated 10/15/04 (updated 11/24/04) and by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas
Bodolsky, dated 10/15/04. A Report concerning the application was also
submitted by the Township Fire Official, Michael Pellek, dated 10/15/04.
3. At the public hearing of 10/20/04 the Applicant
was represented by Paul Nusbaum, Esq. The Applicant’s Engineer, Steve
Byszewsky, testified that the purpose of the application was to amend the
Ledgewood Circle Shopping Center preliminary site plan approval to replace the
former retail building with a smaller building which would house a CVS
pharmacy. He introduced as Exhibit A-1 a rendered version of the landscaping
plan for the southeast corner of the shopping center site. He testified that
the proposed new building would comprise 13,120 square feet versus the 17,300
square foot floor area of the originally approved building. The witness stated
that the loading area would be relocated to the north side of the building and
that a drive-through window would be provided at the rear of the building. He
stated that the principle CVS signs would be on the two sides of the building
at the main entrance with directional signs for the drive-through. Mr.
Byszewsky stated that the new proposal would result in forty percent less sign
area than the originally approved building.
The witness then addressed the variance relief
associated with the amended site plan application. He testified that the
drive-through canopy would require a setback variance, while the main building
would still comply with the setback requirements. He noted that the canopy
would be screened from Howard Boulevard by a landscaped berm. He introduced as
Exhibit A-2 a depiction of site line profiles indicating what drivers on Howard
Boulevard would see of the proposed building. Mr. Byszewsky identified as
another variance the setback of pavement from the northerly building corner and
he stated that the Applicant would instead provide a 5 foot wide landscaped
island. He further testified that the building height would exceed the 28 foot
maximum, but asserted that the building height would not be perceptible to the
public and would create an appealing façade. The witness stated that a
variance would also be required with respect to the two proposed wall signs.
He asserted that the proposed signs would be less obtrusive than those
associated with the original design and that the benefit of the variance relief
would outweigh the detriment. He also testified regarding variance relief with
respect to the three directional signs on the drive-through canopy. He noted
that one of the three originally proposed signs on the Howard Boulevard side
had been eliminated, leaving only two directional signs. He asserted that the
benefit associated with increased visibility of these signs would outweigh the
detriment of the oversized dimensions.
The Applicant’s architect, Robert J. Gehr, testified
regarding the architectural design of the proposed building. He stated that
the design features would match those of the shopping center, and he identified
as Exhibit A-3 a rendered architectural drawing. He stated that the rooftop
mechanical units would be screened by the parapet wall. He identified the area
designated as “SOA” on sheet O-1 as a security observation area, and he stated
that a 10 foot high wall would be provided to screen the loading area and compactor.
In response to questions from Board members, Mr.
Byszewsky continued his testimony and stated that deliveries would take place
approximately once per week and that all delivery vehicles would enter on the
Route 46 driveway and back into the loading space. He testified that the
trucks would leave the site by the northerly driveway behind the mall and exit
onto Route 46 in the vicinity of the White Castle restaurant.
Al Sterphone, the CVS District Sales Manager, then
testified as to hours of operations and number of employees. He stated that
there would be one warehouse tractor trailer delivery per week comprising about
6 pallets of merchandise which would be unloaded in less than an hour. He
testified that there would also be more frequent panel truck deliveries. He
stated that there would be parking to accommodate 15 to 20 customers and 5 to 7
employees. He stated that the upper floor would be utilized as storage for
additional merchandise. John Thomas, the pharmacy supervisor, testified regarding
the drive-through lanes that one would be a pickup lane and one a drop off
lane.
At this point the Chairman opened the hearing to
public comments and there being none, closed the public portion and adjourned
the hearing.
4. The hearing of the application continued at the
Board’s meeting of 11/3/04, at which time the Applicant was again represented
by Paul Nusbaum, Esq. Robert Gehr, the Applicant’s architect, introduced
Exhibit A-4 as an updated rendering of the architectural design showing the removal
of the hip roof and a reduction of the building height. He identified as
Exhibit A-5 revised building elevations depicting the removal of one of the
signs on the drive-through canopy and improved brick detailing across the back
of the store. He identified as Exhibit A-6 a rooftop mechanical equipment
plan. He stated only one unit in the center of the roof would project above
the parapet by about 4 inches and would only be visible from greater than 400
feet away. He indicated the Applicant would be willing to screen this unit per
the requirements of the Township Planner. He also testified that the trash
compactor would not be visible behind the screening wall. Mr. Byszewsky then
proceeded to begin addressing the recommendations in Mr. Stern’s report of
10/15/04. The witness largely indicated that the Applicant would comply with
the recommendations.
The Chairman then opened the meeting to public
comments, and there being none, closed the public portion and adjourned the
hearing.
5. At the hearing of 12/1/04, the Applicant was again
represented by Paul Nusbaum, Esq. Robert Gehr, the Applicant’s architect,
testified that architectural changes had been incorporated per the Board’s
request at the previous hearing. He testified that the hip roof had been
restored and the entrance canopy lowered. He stated that the height at the
front of the building was now 33 feet 7½ inches. He testified that the hip
roof had also been restored on the drive-through, and stated that the
visibility of the drive-through canopy would largely be screened from view. He
identified as Exhibit A-7 a rendering of the revised architectural elements.
The Applicant then reviewed the open items identified in Mr. Stern’s report
markup dated 11/24/04. They agreed to an additional condition prohibiting
storage of pallets and/or bailed cardboard in the loading area. They confirmed
that there would now be no façade signage on the Howard Boulevard side of the
building. With respect to the canopy signage, Mr. Gehr testified that the signs
would be internally illuminated. The Applicant agreed that the design and
illumination of the signs would be approved by the Township Planner. Mr.
Byszewsky, the Applicant’s engineer, introduced as Exhibit A-8 a rendered
version of the southeastern portion of the mall site plan. He testified that
all but one of the wall-mounted lights would be reduced in height from 25 – 13
feet, while the remaining one on the westerly building elevation would be
reduced to a height of 24 feet. In response to comments in Mr. Bodolsky’s
report, he testified that truck circulation would not take place through the
drive-through area. The Applicant also agreed to relocate the trash/dumpster
enclosure to the north of the loading area on the northerly side of the building,
and to provide landscaped screening per the requirements of the Township
Planner.
6. At the public hearing of 1/5/05, the Applicant was
again represented by Paul Nusbaum, Esq. Applicant’s traffic expert Gary Dean
testified that the outermost prescription drop-off lane would be open 95% of
the time and thus would function adequately as a by-pass for the innermost
prescription pick-up lane. He stated that only 5% to 6% of the pharmacy
customers typically utilize the drive-through. The witness introduced as
Exhibit A-9 an overlay to Exhibit A-8, depicting modifications to the northerly
loading area. He said the access aisle width had been widened by about 2 feet
and the curb radius increased to facilitate tractor-trailer turning movements.
Mr. Dean stated that there would only be one tractor-trailer delivery per
week. Although the tractor-trailer would have to momentarily block the Howard
Boulevard exit aisle in order to back into the loading dock, Mr. Dean did not
believe this would constitute an undue safety hazard. In order to minimize
this hazard, Applicant agreed to restrict tractor-trailer deliveries to the
hours of 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. on weekdays and to no deliveries through the front
door. It was also agreed that the design and location of the dumpster
enclosure and its landscaped screening would be reviewed and approved by the
Township Planner. The former dumpster location would be converted to 3 parking
spaces.
At this point, the Chairman opened the hearing to
public comments, and there being none closed the public portion and adjourned
the hearing. A motion was made to conditionally approve the application based
on the recommendations contained in the reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky,
as modified and supplemented in the course of the hearings, 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 and
design waiver relief is hereby granted.
A. A variance is granted from Section 13-7.2602D4 as
a 40-foot front yard setback is required from Howard Boulevard while the
applicant proposes a 29.91 foot setback from the drive-through canopy to the
right-of-way. It is noted that the encroachment only pertains to the canopy
and that the remainder of the building conforms with a 50.77 foot setback. The
canopy is approximately 17 feet wide by roughly 20 feet high to the top of roof.
The landscaped berm and 6 foot high masonry wall will provide partial screening
of the drive-through. While a sign is proposed on the canopy, signage facing
Howard Boulevard has been eliminated.
B. A variance is granted from Section 13-7.2602D10 as
pavement is located flush with the northerly building corner while a 5-foot
landscape setback is required. Additionally, Section 13-8.702H requires a
6-foot setback between traffic aisles and any building. The Board has no
objection as it pertains to the encroachment related to the drive-through
lane. Per the recommendation of the Township Planner, a partial 5-foot
planting island will be installed along the northerly building elevation.
C. A variance is granted from Section 13-7.22602D.7
which establishes a maximum building height of 28 feet. The majority of the
building has a height of approximately 25 feet to the top of the parapet wall.
However the height to the top of roof by the building entrance is 33’–7½”, and
29’-7½” when measured to the mean roof line. Consequently, a variance is
necessary as a building shall not exceed a 28-foot height while a 29’–7½” mean
height is proposed. In granting this variance the Board has considered that
the ordinance encourages contrasting shapes, colors and materials to create an
appealing façade. The Board finds that this design guideline has been
incorporated into the building design.
D. A variance is granted from Section 13-8.905B and
13-8.916E as no more than one wall sign is permitted, while the applicant
proposes 2 wall signs above the building entrance. The Applicant is entitled
to a second wall sign if it were to face Howard Boulevard. The Applicant has
confirmed that wall signs mounted on the Howard Boulevard elevation will be
prohibited.
E. A variance is granted from Section 13-8.903O as
the two drive-through/pharmacy directional signs mounted on the drive-through
canopy exceed an area of 4 square feet. The Board finds that the size and
number of the signs is appropriate and notes that the sign facing Howard
Boulevard has been eliminated. The design and method of illumination of these
two signs shall be approved by the Township Planner.
F. A variance is granted from Section 13-7.2602D10,
to reduce the 10-foot wide sidewalk beneath the southerly E2/E3/#9/E10 canopy
to 6 feet and a 4-foot wide planting area provided, per the recommendation of
the Township Planner.
G. A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.807B
as the CVS/Pharmacy loading area will not be completely screened to obscure the
view from Howard Boulevard. Only a portion of a tractor trailer would be able
to enter the 10-foot high masonry loading enclosure so it is visible from
within the site and from Howard Boulevard. A 10’ wall and evergreen trees have
been provided for screening. The Board finds that this proposal is acceptable
and does not rise to the level of a substantial detriment, provided that
pallets and/or baled cardboard shall not be left outside of the loading area.
H. A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.704.3D
to allow a trash/dumpster enclosure height in excess of 6 feet, in order to
better screen the dumpster from view. This waiver is granted subject to the
approval of the Township Planner as to the location and design of the enclosure
and the landscaping around it.
This approval is subject to the following terms and
conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the
Board=s signature of the amended preliminary site plan
drawings:
1.
Label soffit light detail on sheet D-7 and note that light lens shall be flush
with canopy ceiling.
2.
The Township Engineer shall verify sewer allocation.
3.
In the event any satellite dish or antennae are envisioned, then same shall
comply with Section 13-7.812 Communication Antenna.
4.
The exterior finish code and sign information shall be placed back onto the
architectural drawings.
5.
Correct floor area shall be provided on all applicable drawings: 13,120 square
foot first floor and 2,112 second floor storage area.
6.
The labeling on sheet A-4.1 shall be clarified. Among other items, the
proposed awning is identified as E2 (EIFS white), E3 (EIFS London fog), E9
(colonial slate fiberglass shingle) and E10 (white aluminum fascia).
7.
Dark gray/black roof shingles will be provided on awnings.
8.
The E2/E3E9/E10 canopy shall be depicted on sheet O-1 and the engineering
drawings.
9.
The architectural drawings shall note that rooftop mechanical equipment shall
be architecturally screened in a manner compatible with building architecture
(Section 13-8.707). The center rooftop mechanical unit will be screened with
metal panels matching the building color.
10.
With regard to the loading and compactor enclosure gate, a steel gate frame and
black gate shall be specified.
11.
The trash/dumpster enclosure shall be relocated to the north side of the
building north of the loading area at a location to be approved by the Township
Planner. It shall be screened and landscaped as required by the Township
Planner. The former dumpster location shall be replaced by three parking
spaces.
12.
Gaps that are present between the panels in the Howard Boulevard masonry wall
shall be corrected so that daylight is not visible between the panels.
13.
A steel gate frame shall be specified for the brick dumpster enclosure.
14.
Additional details, including color, shall be provided for the drive-through
pharmacy sign.
15.
All wall signs shall be dimensioned to verify sign area.
16.
The Applicant’s landscape architect shall contact the Township Planner for
further landscape comments. The final landscape plan is subject to the review
and approval of the Township Planner.
17.
The height of all but one of the wall-mounted lights shall be reduced from 25
feet to 13 feet. The height of the wall-mounted light on the westerly façade
shall be reduced from 25 feet to 24 feet.
18.
All tractor-trailer deliveries shall take place between the hours of 5 a.m. and
10 a.m. on weekdays. There shall be no truck deliveries of any type through
the front door of the store.
19.
Plan shall be revised to reflect the modifications to the loading area and
adjacent curbing as depicted on Exhibit A9.
20.
The following construction mitigation measures are hereby made applicable to
this project:
A. Elimination of
anti-vandalism horns on equipment.
B. Work hours shall be limited
from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No work shall take place
on Sundays or holidays except on an emergency basis. The holidays which shall
be observed for purposes of this condition shall be New Year's Day, President's
Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
The Applicant shall maintain personnel on site to whom incidents of noise
disturbance shall be reported and said personnel shall be authorized to take
measures to minimize said disturbances. As used in this section, “work” shall
include both interior and exterior construction.
C. Anti-litter regulations
shall be imposed on site.
D. The Applicant shall
establish regulations for the safe and proper transfer and transport of fuel on
site.
E. Tracking mats shall be
located by the Morris County Soil Conservation District and the Township
Engineer in such places as to minimize the tracking of dirt and mud onto Route
46.
F. Clean-up and wash-down of
trucks and equipment shall be required before leaving the construction site.
G. Adequate provisions for
safe control of employee parking including employees of the contractors and
sub-contractors shall be required on site during construction.
H. During construction, all
construction traffic shall enter and exit the site exclusively from Route 46.
I. Violation of any of these
construction mitigation measures may result in a stop work order, which order shall
remain in full force and effect until the condition is remedied to the
satisfaction of the Township Engineer.
21. As a condition of this approval, pursuant to
Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the Applicant shall request and obtain from the
Township Engineer a determination of their pro-rata contribution for off-tract
improvements as determined by the Township Engineer. Said contribution shall
be paid in full prior to final site plan/subdivision approval.
22. Pursuant to Section 13-7.829, the Applicant shall
pay a mandatory development fee equal to one percent (1.0%) of the total
equalized assessed valuation of the nonresidential development. Fifty percent
(50%) of the fee shall be posted prior to the issuance of any building permit
and the remainder paid prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
23. Applicant shall source separate and recycle all
mandated material as required by the Municipal Recycling Ordinance and the
Morris County Solid Waste Management Plan both during construction and for the
duration of occupancy.
24. Applicant shall submit annual recycling tonnage
reports to the Municipal Recycling Coordinator.
25. Applicant shall meet with the Municipal Recycling
Coordinator to review all recycling requirements.
26. Drawings shall identify areas for trash and
recycling enclosures and potential future expansion of these enclosures with
corresponding details.
27. In the event that future additional dumpster
enclosures are needed for the site, then upon the approval of the Zoning
Officer, they shall be constructed.
28. This approval is subject to the issuance of a
major soil moving permit.
29. This approval is subject to all outside agency
review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.
30. If the Soil Conservation District, Morris County
Planning Board, or any other governmental body from which approval is necessary
causes, through their examination of the plans as recited in this resolution,
any revisions to said plans then, in that event, same shall be submitted to the
Planning Board Engineer. If the Planning Board Engineer deems said revisions
to be significant, the Applicant shall return to the Planning Board for further
review and approval.
31. This approval is subject to the payment of all
appropriate fees and taxes.
32. Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days
and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6
months of the date of memorialization. Failure on the part of the Applicant to
satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral
of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval
null and void.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting
of January 5, 2005.
Mr. Alford made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Alford,
yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
LETTER OF EXTENSION OF SOIL
RELOCATION FOR JOEL SANTORO
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
MAJOR
SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION
PERMIT EXTENSION
Approved:
January 19, 2005
Memorialized:
February 2, 2005
Pursuant to Chapter XVII of the General Ordinances of
the Township of Roxbury, Article 17-1 et seq. (the
"Ordinance), the Roxbury Township Planning Board (the "Board"),
having conducted a public hearing pursuant to the Ordinance, does hereby grant
to the Applicant identified herein an extension of its Major Soil Permit,
subject to the terms and conditions enumerated herein below.
1.
Applicant/Permittee: 96 Route 206 Corp./Joel Santoro
2. Application Number: S-1-04
3.
Property Identification: Block 9203, Lots 1 and 2
4.
Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s): Preliminary Site Plan
5/14/03
5.
Major Soil Permit Approval Date: 1/21/04
6.
Extension Approval Date: 1/19/05
7.
Extension Expiration Date: 1/19/06
8. This permit extension is
subject to all terms and conditions of the original permit except as follows:
None
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is an accurate recitation of the action taken by the Planning Board on the
approval date designated hereinabove.
Mr. Behrens made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Bautz seconded.
S-30-05 – ROXBURY 2002 LLC
– GEMINI – SOIL RELOCATION PERMIT LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9505, LOT 9 IN LI/OR
ZONE
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
MAJOR
SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT
Pursuant to Chapter XVII of the General Ordinances of
the Township of Roxbury, Article 17-1 et seq. (the
"Ordinance), the Roxbury Township Planning Board (the "Board"),
having conducted a public hearing with public notice pursuant to the Ordinance,
does hereby grant to the Applicant identified herein a Major Soil Permit,
subject to the terms and conditions enumerated herein below.
1.
Applicant/Permittee: Roxbury 2002/Gemini Electronics
2. Application Number: S-30-05
3.
Property Identification: Block 9505, Lot 9
4.
Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s): Preliminary Site Plan 8/25/04,
Amended 11/3/04
5.
Major Soil Permit Approval Date: 1/19/05
6.
Effective Date: 1/19/05
7.
Findings of Fact:
A. The Board has received an
Application consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-6, and the
Applicant has paid the application fee pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-7.1.
B. Proof of adequate notice of
this Application, pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-6.5, has been furnished to
the Board.
C. A public hearing was
conducted, in accordance with the Ordinance, and with opportunity for comment
by interested members of the public, on the following date(s): 1/19/05.
D. In granting this Permit,
the Board has considered the factors enumerated in Section 17-6.6 of the
Ordinance. The Board has received and considered the following documents in
connection with this Application: (1) soil moving application dated 12/20/04;
(2) soil movements stockpile plan by Bohler Engineering revised to 1/19/05; (3)
earthwork calculations by Bohler Engineering dated 1/19/05; and (4) reports of
the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 1/11/05 and 1/19/05.
E. The Board has made the
following additional findings of fact:
6. Applicant shall place hay
bales on the site to supplement planned silt fencing for erosion control to the
satisfaction of the Morris County Soil Conservation District and the Planning
Board Engineer.
7. In accordance with
Ordinance Sections 17-6.1(t) and 17-6.4, the Applicant shall stake out interior
improvements with appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township
Engineer, and a professional land surveyor shall stake out lot corners and
appropriate points on line.
8. The Board Engineer will
review the earthwork calculations submitted by Bohler Engineering and may
require submissions of further information/calculations. Based on same, the
Board Engineer will verify the onsite cut and fill quantities and will
determine whether importation of fill to the site is necessary.
9. Construction vehicles
including excavating equipment shall be prohibited from utilizing existing
portions of Old Traveled Way.
10. If deemed necessary by the
Board Engineer, erosion control facilities will be provided along Old Traveled
Way.
11. Prior to earthmoving
activities, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board
Attorney that it has the right/permission to grade onto portions of Lot 1 to
construct the Old Traveled Way extension as depicted on the grading plans.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is an accurate recitation of the action taken by the Planning Board on the
approval date designated hereinabove.
Ms. Voyce made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Voyce, yes;
Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr.
Meyer, yes.
S-5-05 – 1445 RT. 46 LLC –
TREBOUR CYCLE – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR CYCLE STORE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 8602,
LOTS 43 & 44 IN B-2 ZONE
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: January 19, 2005
Memorialized: February 2, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF 1445 ROUTE 46 LLC/JACK TREBOUR MOTORCYCLES
FINAL
MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL
BLOCK
8602, LOTS 43 and 44
APPLICATION
NO. S-5-05
WHEREAS,
1445 Route 46 LLC/Jack Trebour Motorcycles (hereinafter known as the
"Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board
(hereinafter known as the "Planning Board") for final major site plan
approval on January 19, 2005 and
WHEREAS, the
application was deemed complete on 1/19/05; and
WHEREAS, a
public hearing was held on 1/19/05, 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 Development 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 28,125 square
feet located in the B-2 Highway Business District. On February 12, 2003, the
Applicant received major preliminary site plan approval with variances
(memorialized 3/12/03) to convert a vacant building to a motorcycle sales and
service facility. The Applicant now seeks final site plan approval.
2. In support of its application, the Applicant
submitted final site plans consisting of 5 sheets prepared by Schoor DePalma
bearing a revision date of 1/17/05. The Applicant also submitted a map of
Existing Conditions prepared by Ed Secco, PLS dated 12/18/04. Reports
concerning the application were submitted by the Township Planner, Russell
Stern, dated 1/19/05 and by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated
1/18/05. A report concerning the application was also submitted by the Township
Fire Official, Michael Pellek, dated 1/19/05.
3. At the public hearing of 1/19/05, the Applicant
was represented by Thomas Valente, Esq. The Applicant’s Principal, Steven
Cooper, and the Applicant’s Engineer Kevin Northridge, PE, were sworn in as
witnesses. The Applicant agreed to bond all the incomplete items identified in
the reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky and to complete said items by 4/1/05,
except for the raising of the fire hydrant to be completed by 2/2/05.
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 reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky, as
modified and supplemented in the course of the hearings, with such action to
become effective upon adoption, which motion was duly seconded and favorably
acted upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the final
site plan as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove.
This approval is subject to the following terms and
conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
1.
The fire hydrant of the southwest corner of the site shall be raised between 12
and 18 inches. This work shall be bonded and the work completed by 2/2/05.
2.
The following items shall be bonded and completed on or before 4/1/05:
a.
The rooftop mechanical equipment screening shall be extended to the Kings
Parkway elevation.
b.
Awnings shall be completed during non-business hours.
c.
All wallpak lights as well as adjustable floodlight by the trash enclosure
shall be replaced with conforming wall lights as depicted on the approved site
plan.
d.
The trash enclosure gate shall be steel with color coated steel panels.
e.
The size of the “Do Not Enter” sign shall be at least 12” x 18”.
f.
The Applicant shall install annuals/perennials in the spring.
g.
Installation of HSD (Daylily) and EP (Coneflower) shall be completed.
h.
The rear drywell rim (elevation 794.59) shall be lowered below the edge of
pavement for the parking lot (elevation 794.60) to positively capture runoff
from the pavement.
i.
The freestanding light is installed in a location which interferes with the
handicapped parking stall. It was supposed to be installed on the stripe
intersection. The parking stall and striped landing shall be flip-flopped to
avoid bumper damage. Pavement markings shall be removed (not simply blacked
out) and redone accordingly.
j.
The front motorcycle stalls shall be striped to clearly signify that these
areas are parking stalls.
3.
The Applicant shall submit evidence that the road easement to King’s Highway,
as required by Condition #8 of the preliminary resolution, has been approved by
the Township Attorney.
4.
The Applicant shall submit evidence that Lots 43 and 44 have been merged, as
required by Condition #2 of the preliminary resolution.
5.
Payment of Mount Laurel contribution and off-tract/off-site contributions shall
be verified.
6.
The following conditions of preliminary approval are reiterated:
Condition
1. There shall be no outdoor display of merchandise permitted on the site and
no outdoor storage of vehicles awaiting repair.
Condition
6. There shall be no tractor-trailer deliveries to the site except for new
vehicle deliveries approximately once per month.
Condition
13. Commercial repair work or sales of any kind are prohibited within all
off-street parking areas (Section 13-8.702S).
Condition
15. Pursuant to Section 13-7.814 any noise making instruments such as
amplifier, loud speakers, radios or similar devices which are situated to be
heard outside are prohibited.
Condition
16. If a radio, television, or satellite dish antennae are proposed then such
antennae shall comply with Section 13-7.812 Communication Antennae.
Condition
29. Section 13-8.911.1F limits window signs to a period not to exceed 20 days
and that all such signs individually or collectively do not exceed 30% of all
available window space on which the signs are located.
Condition
37. Plant material shall be guaranteed by the landscape contractor for a
minimum period of one (1) year to replace dead or dying plants (Section
13-8.805D).
Condition
41. The Board Secretary shall transmit a recommendation to the Township
Council that parking shall be prohibited on the east side of Roxbury Avenue.
7. This approval is subject to all outside agency
review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.
8. If the Soil Conservation District, Morris County
Planning Board, or any other governmental body from which approval is necessary
causes, through their examination of the plans as recited in this resolution,
any revisions to said plans then, in that event, same shall be submitted to the
Planning Board Engineer. If the Planning Board Engineer deems said revisions
to be significant, the Applicant shall return to the Planning Board for further
review and approval.
9. This approval is subject to the payment of all
appropriate fees and taxes.
10. Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days
and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6
months of the date of memorialization. Failure on the part of the Applicant to
satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral
of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval
null and void.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting
of 1/19/05.
S-2-99 – CLEARVIEW CINEMA –
EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING
BOARD
RESOLUTION OF
MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: January 19, 2005
Memorialized: February 16,
2005
IN
THE MATTER OF CLEARVIEW CINEMA
PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN EXTENSION
BLOCK
5004, LOTS 7 and 8
APPLICATION
NO. S-2-99
WHEREAS, Clearview Cinema
(hereinafter known as the “Applicant”) obtained preliminary site plan approval
from the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the “Planning
Board”) on April 26, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has
requested from the Board an extension of two years pursuant to N.J.S.A.
40:55D-49c; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was
held on January 19, 2005, 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 two years 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 two
years 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 January 19, 2005.
Ms. Voyce made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Voyce, yes;
Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr.
Meyer, yes.
COMPLETENESS
AGENDA
AMENDMENT TO THE ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND HOUSING ELEMENT AND FAIR SHARE PLAN
Mr. Stern stated this amendment
involves Block 9402, Lots 7 and 8 and Block 9402, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6
located on Route 46 going west and is known as the Southwind property, and 6
out-parcels, and a landlocked parcel to the rear. There was an application in
2000 for over 80 townhouse units. The property has been zoned R-5 for about 25
years. It is currently zoned R-5. In 1998 the Township reviewed the Master
Plan and a priority was to analyze our excess non-certified Mt. Laurel housing
sites. This was one of them. Last year we were approached for the large
parcel to develop it for a use other than a high density housing complex. They
sought to get the property rezoned to a commercial type use, allowing
mini-warehousing. The Master Plan Committee considered that, and determined
this site was an excess non-certified site, is not part of our second round
obligation, and is not required for our third round obligation. The Township
has a surplus of Mt. Laurel units going into the third round. The committee reviewed
the site for appropriateness as a B-1A zone. It allows for smaller footprints,
and has a lower FAR and lower impervious coverage. The Master Plan Committee
felt some of the environmental concern lends itself to the B-1A zoning. This
type use can be operated on septic or wells. The property is in an
environmentally sensitive area per the State Development and Redevelopment
Guide Plan. It fronts on Route 46 and is close to Routes 206 and 80. With
B-1A zoning, it can provide services to nearby residential properties. It is
the recommendation to amend the Land Use Plan Element and Housing Element to
promote this change to the planning documents.
Ms. Voyce said as an alternate on
the Master Plan Committee and a Board member and Environmental Commission
liaison to the Board, she agrees with all the points, and feels it is a wise
decision by the Township, and she appreciates all the work that has gone into
it.
Mr.
Germinario stated before the Board considers this, there is an error in the
text. At the bottom of page 5, where it refers to page 36, delete the
paragraph beneath the Muscarelle heading. The document should say Southwind,
not Muscarelle.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Voyce made a motion to approve
the amendment. Ms. DeVincentis seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Voyce, yes;
Ms. DeVincentis, Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, abstain (to avoid any potential
conflicts if any attorney in his firm represents an applicant before this Board
in the future); Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
S-6-05 – ROXBURY TOWNSHP
ROTARY CLUB – REVIEW OF ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT HORSESHOE
LAKE, BLOCK 1802, LOTS 7 & 8 IN GU ZONE
Robert Badini was present and
stated in April of last year, the Township Council gave the Rotary Club
approval to construct something at Horseshoe Lake as a storage area. We are
proposing a 1,200 square foot addition to the maintenance building. 600 square
feet will be for Rotary, and the rest will be used by the Township. The
building will be 750 feet from Eyland Avenue and will be attached to the
existing building. It will have a gabled roof. It will be concrete block and
will be painted the same as the existing building. There will be electricity,
but no heat or water.
Ms. Voyce asked where the
endangered species plant is in relation to the building.
Mr. Badini said he is not aware
of the location of the plant. This area is driven over constantly. The only
vegetation there are big trees, and they will remain.
Ms. Voyce asked that the map be
checked to make sure there is no problem.
Mr. Germinario said this is a
courtesy review, and anything the Board suggests here is not binding, but there
may be State issues such as this that would have to be addressed.
S-10-04 – ETEL REALTY – SITE PLAN FOR RETAIL LOCATED ON
RT. 10/MARY LOUISE AVENUE, BLOCK 6305, LOTS 4 & 5 IN B-2 ZONE
Attorney Gary Mizzone represented
the applicant. He stated there was a letter from Mr. Murray addressing the
reports from the staff. Regarding Mr. Stern’s review letter, I don’t believe
there are any remaining issues.
Mr. Murray went over the
amendments that have been made to the plans. He stated they have eliminated
the design waiver for parking quantity by adding a space, and have relocated
the handicap stalls to the northwest corner of the proposed building. That
resulted in a decreased setback of parking to the Route 10 right of way from 15
feet to 12- ½ feet. The benefit is that we have a conforming number of
spaces.
Mr. Stern said by doing that,
there is no end island provided, and I would recommend it be provided.
Mr. Murray said that would be in
conflict with the loading area.
Mr. Stern said it doesn’t have to
be at the 9 foot width.
Mr. Murray agreed.
Mr. Stern went through his memo
dated 12/30/04, updated 1/31/05:
Item 5 – Mr. Murray said the
loading dock is being expanded. The additional doors are added so each tenant
has access to the loading dock.
Mr. Stern asked if that will be
enclosed.
Matthew Evans, architect for the
applicant, stated they will be open loading platforms in the rear. We will
submit the revised drawings.
Item 7 – agreed – applicant will
comply with any existing ordinance
Item 8 – additional landscape
material should be added between Route 10 and the sidewalk.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Stern’s memo of 6/10/05, updated 2/1/05:
Item 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 – satisfactory
Item 1.8 – EIS not required
Items 1.10, 1.11, 1.14 – 1.20 –
agreed
Item 1.21 – moot
Item 2.3 - design waiver agreed
to by Board
Item 3.1 - agreed
Item 3.2 – agreed
Ms. Voyce asked what the colors
will be.
Mr. Evans handed out copies of
information regarding the color proposed. It is a beige with a brick base and
beige stucco (marked A-4).
Item 3.4 – agreed
Item 3.5 – agreed
Item 3.8 – agreed
Item 5.4 – Mr. Murray said
allocation of water is not required. The property utilizes an existing well,
and that has been confirmed with Public Works. Water usage will be reduced
with this use. We do propose a connection to the water main with a stub, not
to be connected until allocation is provided and the tenant wishes to connect
to a public water supply.
Mr. Bautz asked what property the
well is on.
Mr. Murray said we are
researching that. It may have been paved over. I believe each property that
we are consolidating has a well. The usage is based on square footage and the
former residential dwelling, which was the tattoo parlor and locksmith. Those
uses demand more water than a retail development of the size we propose.
Ms. Voyce asked if a well test is
required. I am also concerned that there has been talk of a food service
facility. I am not sure I agree with the category in terms of actual water
usage.
Mr. Stern said we can refer that
matter to the Health Department.
Mr. Mizzone said our intention is
to locate the wells and have them tested. If it is a requirement of the Health
Department, we will comply.
Mr. Bautz asked what would happen
if the well is inaccessible.
Mr. Murray said it is a condition
we have agreed to comply with. If they happen to be under a building, we would
re-drill.
5.5 – wells will be sealed if not
being utilized
Item 6.4 - design waiver for
excess lighting – minor encroachment – no substantial detriment – there is a
need for a light there.
6.9 – agreed
7.0 – agreed
Mr. Stern recommended the fence
be extended along the side of Lot 2.
The applicant agreed.
Mr. Behrens asked what would
happen if the wells can’t be used.
Mr. Murray said we would tie into
the water system. It is Roxbury Water Company.
Mr. Bautz asked if there are any
high standing lights in the rear parking lot.
Mr. Stern said they are 18 feet
tall and will have shields to prevent spillage onto adjoining properties.
Ms. DeVincentis asked if there
will be parking spaces along the front of the building.
Mr. Stern said there are 3 spaces
near the exit.
Ms. DeVincentis asked if they are
too close to the exit.
Mr. Stern said a little close,
but not uncommon in Roxbury.
Mr. Murray stated only a corner
of one stall encroaches. It is a safe distance from Route 10 as it is in the
exit lane. We are comfortable with the location as proposed.
Mr. Bodolsky asked why the
handicap spots were relocated to the back.
Mr. Murray said the primary
decision was to locate the handicap stalls closer to the loading area, however,
after speaking with the applicant about the need to accommodate the stalls
closer to the entrance doorways of the other tenants, we will switch them with
the three parking spaces in the front. Two of those will be the handicap
spaces. It would be back to a 15 foot setback.
Mr. Stern said in the back you
would be going from 24 feet to 27 feet. That needs to be worked out.
Mr. Murray said we will go back
to the original proposal, and will move just two spaces back to the rear.
Ms. DeVincentis asked if the
existing chain link fence in the back behind Lot 2 will stay as it is.
Mr. Murray said it will, and it
is off site.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Bodolsky’s report of 12/29/04:
Mr. Bodolsky said he has not
reviewed the revised plans.
1 – addressed
2 – addressed - resolution will
note tractor trailers to be prohibited on the site
3 – curb ramp now proposed at
westerly portion
4 – A.D.A. requires 20 foot
striped area for access – 18 foot long stalls
5 – agreed/done
6 – agreed
7 – Mr. Murray said we propose a
significant increase in landscape area. Consequently there is a reduction in
the quantity of runoff and an increase in recharge in those areas. The
addition of a drywell is not warranted, but we propose a perforated roof drain
lateral in a stone trench to promote some recharge in that area.
Mr. Bodolsky said that is an
improvement. Related to that is that this is in the Drakes Brook watershed.
There is an opportunity to do recharge and water enhancement. The ordinance
doesn’t require it, however, we could get that as a condition of a variance.
What is proposed now would give a little recharge.
8 – will leave as proposed
9 – agreed
10 – addressed
11 – discussion – construction
phasing plan will be required, and will be submitted for review and approval by
Mr. Bodolsky.
12 – addressed
13 – Mr. Germinario said if there
is an easement, it would be in the Title Report. It was determined if there
is an easement, the applicant will address it. If not, it is a non-issue.
(Mr. Murray said the utility markouts will address that. They were contacted
prior to the survey and no markouts were shown). It was determined the
applicant will research and find out about the manhole.
14 – Mr. Murray said we have
offered the lawn area along the southern and eastern portion as a vegetated
strip. Mr. Bodolsky said the applicant has offered some recharge in an
earlier comment, and we have no recourse.
15 – agreed
16 – agree
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Behrens made a motion to
approve the application, subject to the items agreed upon, that it is
established this is done so that the water quality issue is satisfactorily
resolved. Mr. Alford seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Behrens,
yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Ms.
DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
There was a 5 minute recess at
8:50
Mr. Meyer announced Application M-10-04
– Kenneth Jacobsen, will not be heard and is carried to 2/16/05.
Applications S-7-05 – Primax Properties/Advanced Auto Parts will not be
heard and is carried to 3/16/05.
S-2-05 – CLEARVIEW CINEMA –
AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR THEATER LOCATED ON RT. 10 ROXBURY MALL, BLOCK 3201, LOT
30 IN R-2 ZONE
Attorney Joel Kobert represented
the applicant.
Paul Sterbenz was sworn in.
Richard Furman was sworn in.
Mr. Kobert said we would like to
provide an overview of this application. We will show that the overall parking
for the site has not changed. What we are changing is the actual building,
which is being reduced in size.
In answer to questions from Mr.
Kobert, Mr. Hathaway stated he is the Vice President of Facilities and Real
Estate for Clearview Cinemas. Our hours of operation are 4 pm. To 10:30 p.m.
on school days, and 12:00 noon to 12:30 a.m. on non-school days. The maximum
number of employees at peak shift is currently about 20 to 25, and with the
expansion it will stay in that range. Hours of deliveries are normally 10 am
to 4 pm and that would also stay the same. The proposed “party room” will be
carpeted and will be the same size as a normal theater. It will be used almost
exclusively for children’s birthday parties in conjunction with movies and
matinees. It will not be leased out to other organizations. They will be all
in-house parties. We have between 15 to 20 parties a month. There will be
folding tables and folding chairs. There will be no arcade or game machines in
that space. It will use the same employees and will serve the same concession
products. There will be no movie screen.
Mr. Alford asked if they will
allow outside food to be brought in.
Mr. Hathaway said they will
discourage that.
Mr. Kobert said this space will
be the same size as a theater, and could eventually become a theater in the
future. We would have to do that within a 4 year time period.
Mr. Bautz asked if the room will
have a slope.
Mr. Hathaway said no, but if it
becomes a theater, we will recreate the slope.
Mr. Furman gave his professional
and educational background as an architect. He stated it would not require any
significant reconstruction. We would build on top of the slab to create the
slope. It would go up from the screen end to about 3 feet up at the lobby
end.
Mr. Bodolsky asked if that would
require exterior construction.
Mr. Furman said it would all be
done internally. No exterior work would be required, except perhaps for adding
an exit door. Supplies would come in through the double doors.
Mr. Bodolsky said when they are
ready for the conversion, he would suggest they come back to the Board. That
can be addressed further in testimony.
Mr. Sterbenz, engineer for the
applicant, stated we originally were before the Board in 1999 to obtain
approvals for the expansion , and did receive approval in April of 2000. That
provided for expansion to provide 16 screens, with a total of 1,494 parking
stalls on the two lots, signage variances were approved allowing for 610 sq.
ft. of building signage and 4 overall signs. The applicant came back in April
2001 for administrative changes which were approved. The site plan provided
for a total of 15 screens with the 1,494 parking stalls. The changes which
were approved involved reworking of the interior space. When this was before
the Board, there were goals the Planning Board had laid out:
- Undefined driveway was defined
- Reduction of motor vehicle
conflicts – narrower isles, one way traffic circulation, additional
signage and crosswalks
- Minimize amount of parking loss
– have proposed re-striping – loss of stalls is only 17
- Clean up buffer separating the
property from residential properties – buffer was increased
- Provide better pedestrian paths
around theater – proposed additional sidewalks and crosswalks
- Vehicular speed – traffic
calming
- Reduce impervious coverage –
slight decrease on original plan which was approved
With the amended plan, all those
objectives are still met, and some are bettered. We are increasing the setback
from the residential properties from 30 feet to 66.5 feet. A lot of the area
behind the building will remain green. Impervious coverage has also been
reduced. The number of parking stalls is the same as the previously approved
plan.
Mr. Alford asked if the traffic
flow is one-way at this time.
Mr. Sturbenz said it is not, but
will be with this plan. One of the main changes that will lessen pressure on
parking stalls and trip generation is the fact that the amended plan results in
less seating. With the two additional theaters there is a need for 1,852
stalls. When the party space is converted to a theater there is a need for
2,113 stalls. The previous plan required 2,336 seats and this has 2,113 seats
with the three theaters. The number of screens will be 11 when the party space
is converted. Previous approval was fort 15 screens.
Mr. Kobert asked if there are any
issues outstanding in Mr. Stern’s report. We have essentially agreed to all
comments.
Mr. Sterbenz said that is
correct.
Ms. DeVincentis asked where the
parking stalls were counted.
Mr. Sterbenz said they are on
Lots 7 & 8. Practically speaking there are 806 parking stalls people
realistically would use when going to the theater. I was present at the
original traffic testimony, and the indication was that there would be a need
for 732 stalls adjacent to the theater, base on 2,800 seats. We are reducing
the seats to 2,113 seats.
Ms. DeVincentis said the point is
you are not adding any spaces.
Mr. Sturbenz said we are not.
The total loss with the addition is only 17 stalls.
Mr. Behrens said most of the spaces
are occupied by other tenants and customers. What is the number of people in
the theaters at one time?
Mr. Hathaway said in most of the
stores the peak hours are between 9:00 and 5:00 on weekdays and weekends. Ours
are usually in the evenings. We realistically occupy about 400 to 500 spaces
on a Friday night.
Mr. Bodolsky said this is the
principal issue in my report. The Board may want to hear some of the original
traffic report because the thrust of that report focused on an area bounded by
Kohls, the east-west isle separating this from Home Depot, McDonalds to the
north, and the property line to the east. That report suggested there were 840
parking stalls available, and they project 732 need in that order. That report
makes an assumption that for every seat you need .2 parking stalls. It also
took account the Caldor needs. My report questions if those assumptions are
still valid. I would recommend the Board get some traffic testimony.
Mr. Kobert said page 3 of Mr.
Stern’s report charts the total number of seats. In our last approval, we were
approved for 2,336 seats. Assuming we are going down to 1,852 seats, we are
going to change the entire flow of traffic there. To bring in an expert now,
when nothing is changing, would shorten our window of time to start
construction. We have until April to open ground. If the Board requires the
expert we will bring him in.
Mr. Bodolsky said that report
said they utilize .2 parking spaces per seat. The 500 seat depletion means a
loss of only 10 spaces. Is the Kohls operation 10 spaces more intense than the
Caldor operation?
Mr. Kobert said if we satisfied
the Board that it worked with 2,336 seats, and we now reduce it by 500 seats,
what will a traffic expert show?
Mr. Stern said the parking that
is proposed essentially stays the same as the previous approval. They are
proposing two theaters plus one party room, so the total number of seats are
1,852 with the party room, and when that converts you would have a total of
2,113 seats. What stays the same is the number of parking spaces. They
testified the parking field stays the same.
Mr. Behrens said the tenants on
the other side have changed. Are they bringing in more cars?
Mr. Sterbenz said the Board
originally approved 2,627 seats that was subsequently reduced. The traffic
study that was done was based on 2,800 seats. Based on that, there was a need
projected for 732 parking stalls. With the current seating, there is a 25%
reduction in the number of seats from what the traffic study addressed.
Regarding Kohls, they were there in 2001 when we came in for administrative
approval, and it was not brought up at that time.
Ms. Voyce said she would ask the
Board to consider whether they would really deny the application based on the
amount of parking spaces. They do have fewer parking spaces than we would
normally require. There is a problem there, but we did the best we could at
the time. I understand the concerns, but I just don’t believe anything will
change. The site conditions won’t change. Either it gets denied or approved
with what they have now.
Mr. Meyer said as indicated in
Mr. Stern’s report, this applicant came to a lot of agreements with the Board
on improving the theater and making it more attractive to the residents. This
is a mall. It is not getting any bigger. What they have come in with now is
an enhancement – the big enhancement is the buffer to the residents. I
understand Mr. Bodolsky’s concern, however, if you bring in a traffic expert,
would the Board deny this application on parking, when everyone knows it is a
tight situation, and it’s never going to get any better?
Mr. Bautz said it doesn’t work
now. It is being increased. There is a lot of overflow from Kohls and other
stores. Will it work? It is a better plan, but we are afraid there will be a
big traffic problem in the future. That is what we are concerned about.
Mr. Kobert said we spent a lot of
time showing you this is a better way for the parking to work. We can’t
improve on the number of spaces. This is a great improvement over what you
have now. We have designed the lot so that it will work better.
Ms. DeVincentis said just because
that was approved doesn’t change what is going on now. The fact that all the
other parking spaces in front of all the other stores are included in the count
for the theater is absurd, especially on Saturdays and Sundays during the day.
On Saturdays and Sundays during the day it is a nightmare. To add two more
theaters and a party room is a big issue.
Mr. Kobert said there are two
other alternatives. It can remain the same, or we build what we were approved
for, which is bigger than what we are asking for tonight. Everyone agreed the
last time that we were making this a safer place. We are now proposing a smaller
structure with a bigger buffer.
Mr. Bautz said on Saturday and
Sunday, would you fill all the theaters?
Mr. Hathaway said that would
never happen at this theater. One of the reasons we are doing the expansion is
that there is a multiplex going up nearby. The attendance here is flagging.
We do not expect it to operate at capacity.
Mr. Bodolsky said a fourth
alternative would be that before the Board agrees to the proposal, there is the
option to forego the conversion of the party room until you find out how the
site works with two theaters.
After further discussion, it was
determined the applicant will present the architecture testimony at this time
and address the parking issue further at a later time.
Mr. Furman referred to Exhibit
A-1, Floor Plan, and stated this is a 15,500 square foot addition to the
existing building. The building has 10 theaters, 8 of which are on the ground
floor and 2 smaller theaters on the projection mezzanine level. The intent is
to remove the 2 theaters on the mezzanine level and convert those rooms to
storage. There will be no public use up there. In the additional area, we
propose two larger theaters for 2/3 of the addition, and the other 1/3 would be
for the party room and future theater. Because of the increased seating
capacity, we will increase the number of toilet fixtures in the washrooms. We
are enclosing an area which is currently under canopy, and making it part of
the lobby. The ticket booth operation will be brought indoors.
Mr. Furman referred to Exhibit
A-2, Drawing A-3, Building Elevations, dated 8/5/04. He said the new portion
will have a synthetic stucco exterior which is colored dark brown and light
cream with a dark blue base. In the center will be an identification feature
and a reader board. Around the corner will be the same stucco treatment and
wrapping slightly. The rest of the building will be the same color, but it
will be painted, not stucco. The rooftop HVAC units will be screened with a
metal panel screening with a baked enamel finish, in a similar color to the
colors on the building.
Mr. Furman showed Exhibit A-3,
Drawing A-4, Front Entrance View, dated 8/5/04, showing the central
identification feature. Regarding signage, we propose the same signage that
was originally accepted by the Board in 2000/20001. We propose three signs
instead of 4. The basic sign is on the Route 10 façade of the building and is
the same size as what was originally approved. We are proposing two signs on
the front of the building, which are the identification sign and reader board.
Mr. Furman submitted and
described Exhibit A-4, Material and Finishes Board, dated 1/14/05, showing
samples and colors of all materials that will be used on the building.
Mr. Shadiack asked if the movie
theater will close down during construction.
Mr. Kobert said Mr. Hathaway will
discuss the phasing of construction.
Mr. Hathaway said we will prepare
a phasing plan for all authorities prior to construction.
Mr. Stern said the applicant had
a phasing plan for the last submission which would have to be modified. At
that time, it was said the theater would stay open for the most part, except
for a short time when it would be closed.
Mr. Sterbenz said we will consult
with Mr. Bodolsky for his review and approval of the phasing plan. Sheet 6 of
the plans has the proposed phasing plan.
Mr. Kobert said this concludes
the presentation, and we believe we can satisfy the reports and have addressed
all the issues.
Mr. Meyer asked that the
applicant discuss the parking further.
Mr. Sterbenz referred to Sheet
4/10 of the Site Plan, Dimension Plan, showing the location of the building
addition and the site improvements being proposed. He said currently there is
a two-way driveway isle in front of the existing theater. It is very wide and
undefined. With this plan, the isle has been narrowed considerably. It is
being converted to a one-way traffic pattern going toward the main isle for the
mall. The point where the drive isle becomes one-way is a point at the southwest
corner of the building addition. There is signage shown on the plan.
Mr. Bautz asked how the handicap
parking stalls work there.
Mr. Sterbenz said they are
located in the first row of stalls immediately to the south of the theater.
Anyone who uses those stalls would exit the stall, work onto the sidewalk and
travel on the sidewalk to a marked crosswalk onto the sidewalk area in front of
the theater. The isle is 24 feet wide. Where the building addition is, it
flares out to 32 feet in width.
Mr. Sterbenz stated one goal of
our plan was to minimize the amount of parking stalls. In order to that, the
parking field opposite the Kohls is proposed to be restriped to 9’ stalls to
minimize that loss. The total loss of stalls will be 17.
Mr. Behrens asked if there will
be any walkway highlighted along the parking spaces on the northern side of the
main drive aisle.
Mr. Sterbenz said we proposed the
construction of a sidewalk toward the 4-story office building. There is a
crosswalk with a sidewalk connection from the Kohl’s parking field to the
sidewalks on the south. The traffic safety officer also noted the need for a
second crosswalk on the main driveway isle, and we have agreed, and suggest it
be put at the southerly terminus of the sidewalk. We are also proposing rumble
strips and signage.
Ms. Voyce asked that Mr.
Germinario outline the Board’s options and advise whether or not the applicant
can just implement the previously approved plan.
Mr. Germinario stated the
approved plan is something they can implement up until the end of April. The
applicant is before us for an amended site plan. It is not an either/or
scenario. We do have a certain amount of latitude of trying to fine tune the
new plan, even to the extent of revisiting some of the features that were
approved previously. There are surrounding conditions in the mall that have
changed and that can be taken into account. It may in fact result in perhaps
holding off on approval of some elements, like the party room being converted
to a theater. I think we do have some areas in which we can adjust the amended
plan and make it work better.
Mr. Bautz said I like the plan,
but just want to make sure it works and is functional for everyone. I would
like to see whether the third theater will work, and to have them come back
before the Board before it is converted from a party room.
Mr. Behrens said realistically,
the spaces will be utilized. We have to live with the number of spaces that
exist now, but we can work on improving safety.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Alice Inge, 6 Beeman Place, was
sworn in. She said regarding the parking issue, the daycare enter isn’t open
on Saturday or Sunday, and if they are, the hours are very early. The one-way
driveway is a good idea for the safety of children. On weekends the medical
center/office complex has earlier hours. All those spaces are open. That
shouldn’t be a real concern of the Board. If I went to the theater and it was
that crowded, I would leave. I haven’t seen a problem when the Tuesday night
car show is there. This plan can only be a benefit for the community. The way
it is now is horrible.
Michael Woemer, 4 Beeman Place,
was sworn in. He said one concern he has is the rumble strips. His home backs
up closest to the new construction. He doesn’t want to hear cars going over
the rumble strips all night long. Otherwise, he believes most of the concerns
were raised at the previous hearings. He would like to see this done.
Mr. Bodolsky said he believes the
rumble strips will be ineffective relative to audible warning at that speed.
They will be essentially slightly raised white strips across the road.
Mr. Sterbenz said there is a
detail on the plans. There is not a lot of noise emitted when a vehicle goes
over them.
Mr. Woemer asked if the back of
the building will be marked for “no parking”.
Mr. Sterbenz said there are no
marked parking stalls back there. The fire official has requested expansion of
the fire zone. We can talk to him about a further extension of the fire zone
to address that situation. We can add signs.
Ms. Voyce asked if we can request
a stop sign at the crosswalk.
Mr. Bodolsky said he has some
reservations about that.
Mr. Woemer said he is all for
this plan.
Mr. Stern said there are
auxiliary pedestrian crossing signs proposed.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Timothy Inge, 6 Beeman Place, was
sworn in. He stated this is an enhancement and he would hate to see the
progress stopped. It looks like a fantastic plan.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Kobert said we are willing to
take Mr. Bodolsky’s recommendation and say we would not build the third
auditorium without coming back to the Board. That would bring it down to 1,852
seats. That would mean that from the original approval, there would be at
least 500 les seats. I don’t want to see us go on for another couple of
months. We have agreed to the items in Mr. Stern’s report.
Mr. Stern said they have
satisfactorily addressed all items in his report.
Mr. Bodolsky said the major items
in his report have been addressed, once the parking issue is addressed,
provided the Board is satisfied with he and the applicant working out the
phasing issue. Mr. Kobert is suggesting accepting that option without
performing traffic studies. Personally, I don’t have a problem with that
compromise. I wouldn’t push for a traffic study if they agree to return to the
Board if the party room is converted.
Mr. Meyer asked for a show of
hands whether it is acceptable if the party room is kept as a party room, and
that they would have to return to the Board before converting it to a theater.
The Board members agreed it would
be acceptable.
PUBLIC PORTION REOPENED
Timothy Inge stepped forward. He
asked if the garbage issue will be improved. It seems to be addressed with the
enclosed compactor.
Mr. Sterbenz said we have added
an extra day per week for pick-up. The new plan has a masonry block enclosure
which is gated, and there will be a board-on-board fence along that property
line.
Mr. Inge said it seems the shift
in concentration of water runoff into our lots by doing the main mall, we are
left with a situation where we have a mosquito problem. It looked like there
was a swale put on the plans. Will that help the situation?
Mr. Sterbenz said the applicant
has agreed to hand-clean the existing ditch to get it to function better. The
swale is proposed and will be directed to piping that will connect to the mall
piping system. It will be going away from your properties.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Bautz made a motion to
approve the application subject to the items agreed upon; the party room stays
as party room until the applicant returns to the Board. Mr. Alford seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Bautz, yes;
Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Ms. DeVincentis,
yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Application approved.
New Business
Ms. DeMasi said the meeting
calendar has second and fourth Wednesdays in June. Should that be changed?
The Board agreed to change it to
the first and third Wednesdays. Ms. DeMasi will send out a revised list of
dates.
Ordinance 02-05 to be
reviewed for consistency to the Master Plan.
Mr. Stern said this ordinance
pertains to the Muscarelle Tract, which has been zoned R-5 for a number of
years. The Governing Body proposes to retain the R-5 zoning, which could yield
260 townhouse type units, not age restricted, and the proposal now is to create
senior housing condominium units as a permitted use. Out of that 260, 20%
would be for-sale Mt. Laurel age restricted units. It also restricts the
buildings to 3 principle buildings on the site. The Master Plan talks about
creating a diversity of housing, addressing housing for all ages. I would say
this is consistent with the Master Plan.
Mr. Germinario said this would
remain R-5, and is consistent with the permitted uses and with the Master
Plan. It is just adding another option onto the R-5 requirements.
Mr. Stern said this property is
in a PA-5 Planning Area.
Ms. Voyce made a motion that the
ordinance is consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Voyce, yes;
Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Shadiack, abstain; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Ordinance 03-05 to be
reviewed for Master Plan Consistency
Mr. Germinario said this
ordinance would rezone the Southwind Tract and the other six parcels in R-5
except for Muscarelle and rezone them as B-1A.
Mr. Stern said since we just
amended the Master Plan, this zoning falls right in line with that document, so
it is consistent.
Ms. Voyce made a motion that the
ordinance is consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Alford seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Voyce, yes;
Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, abstain; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Ordinance 04-05 to be
reviewed for Master Plan Consistency
Mr. Stern said this is an
ordinance by the Governing Body that will allow mini warehousing as a
Conditional Use in the B-1A District.
Ms. Voyce made a motion that the
ordinance is consistent with the Master Plan. Ms. DeVincentis seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Voyce, yes;
Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Shadiack, abstain; Mr. Alford, yes;
Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Ordinance 05-05 to be
reviewed for Master Plan Consistency
Mr. Germinario said when the
master rezoning was done in 2002, by mistake, a few properties which are
identified as Block 6501, Lots 13 and 14, were to remain B-2, but inadvertently
when the map came out, it was identified as PO/R. We are adopting this
ordinance to bring it back to B-2.
Mr. Behrens made a motion to
approve the ordinance. Ms. DeVincentis seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Behrens,
yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack,
abstain; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 11:15 p.m.
Dolores
DeMasi, Secretary