 |
|
|
|
Chairman
Giordano called the meeting of the Mendham Township Planning Board to order at ROLL
CALL: Present:
Mr. Giordano, Mr. Tolley, Mayor Pierson, Mr. D’Emidio, Mr. Majorossy,
Mr. Mountain, Mrs. Link Also
Present:
Mr. Falcon, Attorney, Mr. Kimball, Planner, Mr. Balut, Engineer, and Mr. Aubin,
Environmentalist SALUTE
TO THE FLAG
ADEQUATE
NOTICE of
this meeting of the Mendham Township
Planning Board was given as follows: Notice
was sent to the DAILY RECORD and the OBSERVER
TRIBUNE on MINUTES
–
MASEFIELD
PRELIMINARY MAJOR SUBDIVISION – APPLICATION 04-04
Mr.
Peter Henry of Dilon Peter in Mr.
Henry identified the property as Block 100, Mr.
Madsen stated that he was a New Jersey registered professional engineer,
employed by Apgar Associates, a graduate of NJIT, a professional engineer for
the past ten years, and has previously testified before numerous planning
boards, including the Mendham Township Planning Board.
Mr. Henry offered Mr. Madsen as an expert, and Chairman Giordano asked
the members of the Board if there were any questions, and there were none.
Chairman Giordano explained to the public that Mr. Madsen was being
offered as an expert and asked if the public had any questions regarding his
background, and there were none. Mr.
Henry asked Mr. Madsen if he had prepared the plans, and Mr. Madsen said the
plans were prepared under his supervision by his firm.
Mr. Henry asked Mr. Madsen if this was the plan originally drawn for the
purposes of the subdivision, and Mr. Madsen said the original was a conceptual
plan that showed six lots with a cul de sac that ended several hundred feet
before Mr.
Henry referred to the variance issue concerning the accessory structures and
asked Mr. Madsen to identify those structures and locations.
Mr. Madsen said there are two garages -- one is 61 feet from the proposed
right of way and the other is 150 feet off of the right of way behind the
existing garage, and a pool that would occupy what would become the front yard
of the remaining lot. Mr. Henry
asked if those structures are within the building envelope in the present
configuration of what is proposed, and Mr. Madsen said yes.
He further said, in its current configuration, the existing house does
not have the appearance of a front façade that is facing the road, and from
today’s appearance, the front of the house is facing what would be the new
road. Mr. Henry asked if there
was any effort to mitigate any impact from those structures, and Mr. Madsen
said that anyone that would be purchasing a lot on either side would be made
aware that the structures are there and the situation that exists.
Mr. Henry asked if they could be buffered or screened, and Mr. Madsen
said that plantings could be done. Mr.
Henry asked if there was any practical way for the road to be located such so as
it does not create a front yard where those structures are located, and Mr.
Madsen said no, there is not. Mr. Henry
asked, as a practical matter, is the only way to avoid the front yard variance
would be to not subdivide the property ever and manage a 30 or 40 acre backyard,
and Mr. Madsen said that is correct. Mr.
Henry referred to the road alignment and asked Mr. Madsen to comment on the road
design and the alternate road design that had been suggested and the impacts.
Mr. Madsen said the current road design extends Mr.
Madsen said Exhibit A-3 shows a new left side property line and puts the garage
80-85 feet off of the property line and brings back over three acres for total
lot area for 52.01 and does not create a design waiver, but puts a slight angle
in the lot itself, much like the right side.
He said Exhibit A-4 would require the design waiver and moves the lot
line 63 feet from the garage which is still a conforming setback but closer and
provides a property line that is straight to the back corner.
Mr.
Henry asked if road width and curbing had been addressed in the realigned road,
and Mr. Madsen said the plans presented to the Board show a road that
tapers from 24 feet to a proposed width of 20 feet.
He further said that the consultants suggested that the roadway be
reduced to 18 feet in width, which they have no objection to.
Mr. Madsen stated this width was considered a rural lane by
definition in the RSIS, and rural lanes are streets that have less than a daily
traffic count of 200 trips. Mr.
Henry asked if there was any reason to expect traffic count to exceed that in
this area, and Mr. Madsen said no, they are projecting a daily count of 70
trips – 10.1 trips for a residence and a maximum of 7 residences.
Mr.
Henry referred to the existing cul de sac at the end of Mr.
Henry referred to the subdrainage surface water management plan, and Mr. Madsen
reviewed the plan submitted to the Board for consideration as Sheet 6 of 19, the
Grading and Percolation Plan. Mr.
Madsen said he had met with Messrs. Balut, Aubin and Peel to discuss a different
stormwater management configuration, and it was suggested that perhaps an
underground detention system be installed to minimize disturbance of the area
along the roadway and proposed to provide swales along the side of the road.
He further said the design of this plan has not been finalized but they
are seriously looking into creating such a system.
Mr. Henry asked if there were any drawbacks with this type of system, and
Mr. Madsen said the major drawbacks were the disturbance of the swales on the
side of the road. He said it may put
them in a position where they are exceeding the permitted slope disturbance.
Mr.
Henry referred to the report from the Township Engineer, Mr. Balut, and Chairman Giordano
asked that they go through each of the items without reiterating them in any
detail. Mr.
Madsen reviewed the Township Engineer’s report as follows: Item
1:
No problem Item
2:
No problem; referred to Sheet 2 of 19 and noted that the green area
presents the
proposed conservation easement area around the wetland buffer area and
was
marked as Exhibit A-6 Item
3:
Okay Item
4:
Cut and fill for road only Item
5:
Will show the gas line Item
6:
The pool appurtenances are to be removed to another location out of the
right of
way Item
7:
Agreed to Item
8, B1: More
of a statement Item
8, B2: Was
discussed; revised road line and reduction in lot area for 52.01 Item
8, B3: Deals
with the existing cul de sac on Mr.
Balut stated that the Tree Protection Committee should review this application
during this process prior to the Planning Board taking any action.
Mr.
Henry said they can realign the road, and they just need to know what the Board
would like to do. Chairman
Giordano asked for an explanation of the purpose of the cul de sac, and Mr. Henry
said it provides a place for emergency vehicles and large body trucks to turn,
and for vehicles turning on the wrong road.
Chairman Giordano asked Mr. Balut and Mr. Kimball for their views on
the cull de sac, and Mr. Balut said his reasoning was that, in the past, it has
been the practice of the Board to remove cul de sacs as it provides a nice
uniform road, which is an aesthetics issue.
Mr. Kimball added there was the possibility of confusion for people
not familiar with the area. Mr. Balut
referred to the stone pillars and noted that if the cul de sac and pillars are
left, it does give the appearance of a private road or driveway and may lead to
confusion, even from an emergency standpoint.
He said people may not realize you can get through to Carriage Hill and
the Board’s reason for a thru road is safety.
Mr. Madsen stated that the pillars would still provide the appearance of
a private road whether there is a cul de sac there or not.
Mr. Henry said this led to the question of whether they should be removed
in any event. Mr. Balut said it
could be done in stages and doesn’t require the removal until you get a chance
to look at it. Mr. Masefield said it
doesn’t make sense to rule on it before we have an opportunity to see how it
works, but also noted that one of them has to come down anyway.
Mr. Balut agreed. Mayor
Pierson suggested that this be kept on the agenda for a decision because it will
be a public road. Mr.
Madsen continued with the items in the Township Engineer’s report: Item
8, B5: Will
look into this and correct any grade levels that are incorrect Item
8, B6: It’s
an important discussion but will provide additional plans for the temporary cul
de sac in the plan set Item
8, B7: Agreed
to Item
8, B8: 18
foot, no curbway and demonstrated we would comply with the rural lane required
for traffic counts Mr.
Balut stated that they would have to add in the off-tract houses on the road to
come up with that total count and cannot just count the development because you
have other traffic. Chairman
Giordano noted for the record that Mr. Madsen would review the calculations and
see if Mr. Balut is in agreement. Mr.
Madsen continued with the Stormwater Management items in the Township
Engineer’s report: Item
1:
No problem with that, but the State only requires ground water be 2 feet
below
the basin bottom, and Mr. Balut said he was asking that they dig down 5
feet Item
2:
No objections to including the sumps in our basins Fire
Official Item
D1:
Will provide Item
D2: Item
D3:
Require additional routing information in our report Item D4: In the design of our detention, the existing flows are reduced by 50 percent and reduced by ______, which would contribute less flows to the ponds than currently. Mr. Balut said he was referring to ground water, not surface water, and noted that this is the analysis that Mr. Aubin has asked for. Item
F1:
No problem Item
F2:
Discussed the underground detention system and the swales Item
F3:
Agreed with Item
F4:
Earth Item
F5:
Will provide detail Mr.
Henry stated that was all the testimony from Mr. Madsen at this point. Chairman
Giordano asked the Board members if there were any questions for Mr. Madsen. Mr.
Majorossy asked about reducing the roadway to 18 feet and given the long
roadway, and if there were any spots where vehicles could pass, and Mr. Balut
said that was not required by the RSIS. Mr.
Kimball noted that there were many 18 foot streets, and they were typical in the
Township. Mr. Tolley referred to the
swales and no curbs and the emergency vehicles, and Mr. Balut said the
detail shows an 18 foot paved road and the stabilized base below is 20 feet.
A full discussion of swales ensued. Mr.
Aubin made the point that the amount of 15 to 25 percent slopes on the site are
pretty small, and he believes it is better to exceed the slopes disturbance
category and achieve a narrow roadway with better alignment, a better stormwater
runoff system and provide water quality and aesthetic benefits to the project as
a whole. Mr. Kimball noted that
standards are being discussed, as is so often the case, but they are just
numbers on a page, and they do not take into consideration the quality of
distinctions that you find in the field and the big part of what the Master Plan
is about. He said conditions in the
field must be considered and choices made about what part of that landscape
should be preserved from the Township’s, and applicant’s, point of view.
He further said, from that part of view, he believes that the
recommendations that Mr. Balut and Mr. Aubin have made are designed to make
those qualitative judgments. Mrs.
Link _______________________________________________
said she is not sure she supports moving the road or not moving it.
She said she knows the Board has the authority to exceed the slope
limitations, but asked if the Board has the authority to allow lot 52.01 to be
less than three acres if the road is moved.
Mr. Falcon said yes, assuming it can be justified and rationalized, the
Board has the authority. Mayor
Pierson referred to Sheet 6 and asked if the position of the houses were just
suggestions, as he was surprised by the house location on lot 5, and asked if
they were opposed to moving it further north to the Chairman
Giordano asked where the basic addition was when lot size averaging was
utilized, and Mr. Madsen aid the ordinance allows the rounding up and it changed
all the lot lines. Chairman Giordano
referred to 52.05, lot 6, and asked if there was really that much versatility
with the location of the house between the pond and the environmentally
sensitive area. Mr. Madsen referred
to Sheet 2 and said because of the special resource protection area that is
measured from the pond, that limits the area in which you can construct the home
towards the pond. He pointed out a
triangular shaped building envelope area and noted that the home could be placed
anywhere within that area. ADOURN
There
being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was seconded, all aye, and the meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully
submitted, Hope
Warrington Planning
Board Secretary |
|
