MENDHAM TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

AUGUST 17, 2005

7:30 P.M.

Chairman Giordano called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. and asked for roll call.  Upon roll call: 

ROLL CALL: 

PRESENT:                  Mr. Tolley, Mayor Krieg, Mr. Pierson, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain, Mr. D’Emidio, Mr. Giordano

ABSENT:                     None

Others present:           Tom Lemanowicz, P.E., John Aubin. Environmentalist, Duggan Kimball, P.P., Ed Buzak, Esq.

The Chairman led the flag salute and announced that adequate notice of the meeting had been given.

MINUTES FOR APPROVAL

Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the June 15, 2005 Regular Meeting; all agreed.  Motion carried. 

ANNOUCEMENTS

Motion made by Chairman Giordano to approve the appointment of Edward J. Buzak, Esq. as Planning Board attorney and seconded; all agreed.  Motion carried. 

APPLICATIONS

PB-05-05; Mahyar, Sharyar; Lot Development with request for Steep Slope Variance; Block 148, Lot 2; The applicant/contract purchaser and professionals, were sworn.  Greggory Yannacone, applicant’s engineer, presented Exhibit A-1, signed purchase contract dated June 18, 2004 , to the Board.  Mr. Mahyar said the property was for his own use. 

Chairman Giordano opened the meeting to the public to comment on the professional’s credentials; there being no comment the meeting was respectfully closed to the public. 

Mr. Yannacone said the existing subdivision off Cobblefield Road was previously approved in 1986.  He said he received an LOI for up to one acre of disturbance and presented Exhibit A-2, Sheet 5 of 6, which showed the previous concept proposals and color coded disturbance areas, and Exhibit A-3, Sheet 2 of 6, showing limited disturbance lines, the house, driveway, drywells and turn around.  He referenced the originally proposed footprint and its septic system location and said he was able to reduce disturbance, but had requested a variance for the steep slope, since he could not fully comply.  Mr. Van Renssellaer also requested a waiver for the Environmental Impact Statement. 

Mr. Yannocone reviewed Mr. Kimball’s report dated August 2, 2005 , which referred to the slopes in relation to the building envelope, which reported a 70% disturbance on the 15-25% slopes without using the gross lot area and a 30% disturbance on the greater slopes.  The report recommended use of silt fencing on the downhill in combination with hay bales to protect from sediment/erosion accumulation during construction and a conservation easement to protect the land. 

He had also referred to Mr. Aubin’s report dated July 18, 2005 .  Mr. Yannocone said the house was placed on the front setback line so a variance would not be required and had located the septic system to rely on gravity and not require a pump system, and positioned the Reserve Area to not disturb the area with further testing.  He said the slope could not be integrated on the Lot Development Plan because of extensive detailing. 

Mr. Yannocone said the Lot Development Plan and the Variance would not pose any detriment to surrounding properties.  He referred to Mr. Lemanowicz’s report and said the septic system fully complied since the soil was good combined with the use of the silt fence, hay bales, and drywells to mitigate soil erosion and sediment control. 

A member of the Board had a question regarding the quality of soil on p. 8 of Mr. Aubin’s report. 

Ms. Link questioned the statement that the footprint was previously approved and said that the subdivision was approved, not the footprint.  Mr. Yannocone said an LOI had been obtained for the footprint of disturbance and said it was within the one acre of proposed disturbance and no wetlands were on the property, which was exempt from Transition Area because it was created under the MLUL. 

Ms. Link asked about the EIS from 1986 and was told that the copy was not available.  

Another Board Member was concerned about future steep slope variances and asked if it would be better to leave it vacant. 

Attorney Van Renssellaer said the hardship should not be on Mr. Mayhar because of the topography of the land and that topography should not be a reason to not approve the application and felt it was an isolated case. 

Mr. Tolley felt that the house was not suited to the site, had suggested to relocate the garage to the other side of the house, and to redesign the shape of the house as a box which would reduce impervious coverage and allow the house to be located 10 feet closer to the road. 

Mayor Krieg asked if the house would fit the lot better if its size was reduced by 10-15%. 

Someone said a shallower house would require less grading and the turn-around would fit the area in front of the garage.  Mr. Yannacone said the driveway had been designed to keep garage doors out of sight with a turn around in front. 

The Board had not received a report from the Fire Department to comment on the collapse zone, which was on the driveway in front of the house. 

Mrs. Link said she visited the site and said nothing could be built without a slope variance for the over 25% category.  Variances in this category should be used when needed for driveways or utilities, but not for the septic or the house itself and felt the design should be changed to eliminate any disturbance over 25%. 

Someone said they did not want to dictate the house’s design but said the applicant should come back with a plan that stays within 5% in the 25% grade. 

Chairman Giordano asked about the proposed height of the building.  Mr. Yannacone said the height was less than 35 feet in accordance with the Ordinance.  A Board Member said that the Ordinance was designed for flat property. 

Mr. Lemanowicz questioned a footnote referring to an accessory building on the zoning table but was told that one was not proposed.  He asked about a piece of pipe that stuck out of the driveway and wanted to know how the floor area ratio was calculated. 

Mr. Yannacone said the house could be moved closer to the 5% by using a retaining wall to get it closer to the road. 

Chairman Giordano opened the meeting to the public. 

Dr. Khanna, owner of the lot, said he spent a lot of money going back and forth over the past two years trying to sell the property and the contract purchaser had spent a lot of money as well.  The development was created during the 1980s and the original developer went bankrupt.  The new developer sold it and there was a conceptual design of the lot at the time.  He had gone to Town Hall but the records could not be located. 

James Paragano, 9 Cobblefield Drive , said he was an Architect, asked about the conservation easement, location of the septic with the open waters and felt it would be better to have the house set back farther from the street.  He said the Steep Slope Ordinance would cause several other lots on the street to come before the Board, and wanted a resolution that was fair and organized and was in favor of the development. 

Mr. Kimball said these were the constraints the Board needs to address and if created now would be drastically reconfigured. 

Mr. Paragano said the property had steep slopes and water, asked about the building’s height and how relocation closer to the street affects the height. 

Mr. Yannacone said if the house’s height was lower, it could be positioned closer to the street by adjusting grades and roof line to conform. 

Mrs. Link spoke for the Environmental Commission said they had an Inspector looking at Conservation Easements. 

Mr. Mahyar said he was one of the candidates to build the house. 

Chairman Giordano closed the meeting to the public. 

Someone said a letter was sent to the Board and the Chairman Giordano said that the person would need to come to the meeting and the letter would be kept on file. 

Chairman Giordano recommended the applicant to reduce the 25% area and get out of the 25% slope area. 

Application was carried to the next meeting and the Deadline for Decision was extended to October 19, 2005 . 

PB-04-01; (Irene’s Spring Tree Farm, Lawarence Farmland, LLC; Proposed changes to alignment and grading of Exmoor Drive; Block 147, Lot Nos. 7, 42, 42.01-42.04; Ed Trawinski, Esq. for applicant.  The applicant had been granted the request for vacation of the road that would run to Irene’s house by Mayor and Council.  The applicant had returned before the Board for the deviation of the realignment of the road which would affect the Hardscrabble Road entrance.  The engineers met in the field and the slope at the entrance of the existing driveway could not comply with RSIS Standards.  Exhibit 24-A was presented to the Board, Sheet 2 which proposed to grade the intersection, by cutting into the existing slope, raising the area coming into the development to make it flatter. 

The DPW said the existing road had eight inches of asphalt and did not want to have additional pavement on top of that, it would have to be milled and a suitable subsoil would have to be put in, which was agreed to.  The only driveway affected by the process was Lot 31.06 and the lot owner had no objection. 

Mr. Lemanowicz said the exception was no longer needed because the proposed road would blend two slopes together, with a vertical curve making it less steep and improving sight distance cars since the cars would be higher. 

Chairman Giordano wanted to make sure that Mr. Read agreed that the slope should be milled and paved. 

The original plans proposed to use two pillars at the entrance, the applicant now proposed to remove the existing entrance and proposed to construct a stonewall with variations in height not to exceed four feet.  The two adjacent property owners would maintain the wall so a homeowners association would not have to be created. 

The applicant would come back before the Board with the cistern, water mains and fire. 

PUBLIC SESSION

Chairman Giordano asked for a motion to open the meeting to the public and was seconded, there being no comment meeting was motioned closed to the public and seconded; agreed. 

CORRESPONDENCE

Chairman Giordano would correspond directly with Administration regarding the Board attendance to the Christmas party and the professionals would need to notify Mrs. Newell on their own. 

Motion to adjourn the meeting was made and seconded; all agreed. 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                MaryAnne Gruszecki

                                                                                                Board Secretary