|
MINUTES
MENDHAM
TOWNSHIP
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR
MEETING
APRIL 16, 2003
Mr.
Giordano called the meeting of the Mendham Township Planning Board to order at
7:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Mr. Giordano, Mr. Tolley, Mayor Pierson, Mr. D’Emidio (arrived
8:15 p.m.
),
Mrs.
Kinsel, Mr. Mountain, Mr. Timpson
Absent: Mr.
Majorossy
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ADEQUATE
NOTICE OF MEETING
of the Mendham Township Planning Board was given as follows: Notice was sent to
the Daily Record and the Observer Tribune on
January 9, 2003
. Notice was posted
on the bulletin board in the Township Hall in
Brookside
,
New Jersey
, on
January 9, 2003
, and Notice was
filed with the Township Clerk on
January 9, 2003
.
Chairman
Giordano requested that Mr. Villa provide a short voir dire in order to
provide the public with the opportunity to present any questions pertaining to
Mr. Villa’s qualifications. Mr. Villa stated that he is a principal with the
civil engineering and surveying firm, Yannaccone, Villa & Aldrich, LLC, and
has been engaged in civil engineering and design work for close to 20 years. He
further stated that he has been a professional engineer since 1980, also has a
planning license, and has appeared before this Board and other Boards in the
area over the years. Since there were no questions from the Board or the public,
Mr. Villa was qualified as an expert engineer and planner.
Mr.
Trawinski confirmed with Mr. Villa that he is the project engineer for this
project, is familiar with the subject property, and that the plans were prepared
under his supervision. Mr. Trawinski asked Mr. Villa to describe the property
from an engineering perspective.
Mr.
Villa advised that he had mounted certain sheets of the 56-page major
subdivision plans that had been provided to the Board for his presentation.
Mr.
Trawinski entered the first drawing as Exhibit A-1– the Title Sheet of the set
of drawings known as Irene’s Spring Tree Farm Estates Preliminary Major
Subdivision Plan, sheet 1 of 56, originally dated
February 5, 2003
, latest revision
February 27, 2003
.
Mr.
Villa described the subject property is in the southeast corner of the Township
by the Bernardsville, Mendham and Harding borders. There are 5 acre and larger
and smaller residential lots on the west side of
Hardscrabble Road
; to the south is
the
Township
of
Mendham
border with the
Borough of Bernardsville, and a small portion of this property is in the Borough
of Bernardsville. There are developed properties, mostly 5-acre residential lots
on
Beverly Drive
and
Cobblefield Drive
; to the east there
are larger parcels that are undeveloped and some developed parcels with
residential properties; and to the north there are residential lots on
Corey Lane
of five acres or
more in size. The property is identified on the Township Tax Map as Block 147,
Lot
42 and
Lot
7 in the
Township
of
Mendham
, and in the
Borough of Bernardsville there is a small triangular piece of 1.26 acres on the
other side of the Borough boundary and that part of this site is known as Block
8,
Lot
2. The total of
these three parcels amounts to 183.5 acres. The site is located in the Mendham
Township R-10 Residential Zoning District.
Mr.
Villa referred to sheet 2 of 56 identified as the Area Map and entered as
Exhibit A-2, which shows the adjoining zoning districts. Mr. Villa noted that
the main access to the site, currently in operation as a farm, is off of
Hardscrabble Road
.
Mr.
D’Emidio arrived at
8:15 p.m.
Mr.
Villa described Block 147,
Lot
42 and the
adjacent parcel,
Lot
7, a flag lot,
with several unimproved roads, right of ways, and easements. He further stated
that this application is for a totally conforming subdivision consisting of 16
residential lots, with no variances or waivers. He noted that this property is
known as Irene’s Spring Tree Farm with numerous buildings and a large majority
of the site is undeveloped.
Lot
7 has an existing
dwelling which will be removed and the long driveway to
Corey Lane
will no longer be
used. Mr. Villa noted that the piece in Bernardsville will be included with one
of the ten-acre lots and that Borough of Bernardsville Planning Board was not
requiring subdivision approval since lot lines will not be moved, and there is
no proposed disturbance on that property.
Mr.
Villa referred to sheet 3 of 56 entitled Environmental Constraints Map and
entered as Exhibit A-3 with the same dates as the previous drawings, and
proceeded to fully describe the environmental conditions of the subject site.
Mr.
Villa stated that the applicant is seeking preliminary major subdivision for 16
residential lots which all conform to bulk requirements in terms of lot area,
lot circles and setback and they have been able to develop a layout which
conforms with all Township requirements. The lots range in size from a little
over 10 acres and up to 15.3 acres, with an average lot size of 11.1 acres. He
further noted that this subdivision is proposed in three phases.
Mr.
Villa referred to page 4 of 56 entitled Phasing and Demolition Plans and entered
as Exhibit A-4 with the same dates as the previous drawings. He noted that phase
1 consists of 4 lots, 49-1/2 acres of the site, including a cul-de-sac
construction using the existing entrance to Spring Tree Farm, and he continued
with a detailed description of phase 1.
Mr.
Villa noted that phase 2 consists of 8 lots in total, 87.8 acres of the site,
and the road that will access these properties is on
Beverly Drive
, and he continued
with a detailed description of phase 2.
Mr.
Villa noted that phase 3 consists of 4 lots, 40.3 acres of the site, and
currently consists of the facilities, buildings, and so forth used on the farm.
and he continued with a detailed description of phase 3.
Mr.
Villa summarized by stating that this application requires no design waivers,
bulk or use variances, or slope waivers. The wetlands have been approved by the
DEP, and they have an LOI for these properties. A transition averaging plan has
been submitted to the DEP and will only be used to reduce buffers on a couple of
lots. Lots will be served by individual septic systems and private wells and
will have three 30,000 fire tanks to serve all of the houses. The Board of
Health has approved the site for septic suitability, and a soil erosion and
sediment plan is currently pending in front of the Morris Soil Conservation
District.
Mr.
Trawinski referred to a copy of a deed dated
February 27, 1976
, from Walter A.
and Hazel D. Jockers to the
Township
of
Mendham
and asked Mr.
Villa to examine it and advise if he has seen this deed before. Mr. Villa
confirmed that he had seen the deed. Mr. Villa further confirmed that this is
the deed he is referring to when he refers to the fact that there is already an
easement for the extension of
Beverly Drive
that gives the
rights to
Mendham
Township
.
Mr.
Trawinski entered the Jockers Deed dated
February 27, 1976
, as Exhibit A-5
and discussion ensued regarding the deed.
Mrs.
Kinsel referred to a
March 7, 2003
, letter from the
Borough of Bernardsville regarding this subdivision and requested that condition
#1 regarding a deed restriction and conservation easement for Block 8,
Lot
2, be followed up
on.
Mrs.
Kinsel then referred to as
March 11, 2003
, letter from MCSC,
and requested a status of the 6 pending items noted in the letter. Mr. Villa
stated that these are technical questions that they will respond to but wanted
the opportunity to come before this Planning Board for any necessary further
changes before doing so.
Chairman
Giordano requested that Mr. Trawinski move forward with review of the report
from Maser Consulting.
Mr.
Trawinski referred to the
April 10, 2003
, letter from Mr.
Charles Balut of Maser Consulting and asked Mr. Villa to review this report.
Mr.
Villa reviewed the following items in the Maser Consulting report as follows:
A.
General
1)
Will
be added to the plan.
2)
No
comment. While they have no problem regarding recommendation that Township
reduce speed limit to 25 mph on
Hardscrabble Road
in portion of
Mendham
Township
, that is an aspect
outside of their control.
3)
Feels
that if overhead pole line is moved could do more damage; trying to protect the
trees; if Board would like it moved, they will move it. Review at on-site
inspection.
4)
Agreed.
5)
Agreed.
B.
Roadway
1)
No
comments
2)
No
problem
3)
No
problem complying with Engineer’s request; Messrs. Villa and Balut to discuss.
4)
Takes
exception; enhanced swails being proposed didn’t see need for additional pipes
or drainage but will work with Engineer to satisfy his concerns.
5)
One
of the conditions of the Bernardsville Planning Board was to not touch
Beverly Drive
; Mr. Villa will
work with Mr. Balut to address his concerns, but believes the sight distance is
adequate and found nothing on record regarding any accidents or problems at that
intersection; does not believe it’s a safety issue. Mr. Balut respectfully
disagreed stating that he believes the sight distance is horrible particularly
given that the amount of traffic will double and has a letter from the Mendham
Police Chief and Mendham DPW concurring with his views. Messrs. Villa and Balut
will discuss further and involve Bernardsville in the decision.
6)
No
problem; drafting error; should indicate 5 percent slope.
7)
Didn’t
get too detailed part of the planner’s report also; tabled for discussion of
Kimball & Kimball report.
8)
Willing
to do what’s reasonable; we want to make it meet certain standards; will
review with Board on site visit; not a major issue.
C.
Stormwater Management
1)
Will
review from technical basis with Mr. Balut.
2)
No
problem with infiltration trench.
3)
Not
in position to comment at this point; will review with Mr. Balut.
4)
Not
in position to comment at this point; will review with Mr. Balut.
5)
Not
in position to comment at this point; will review with Mr. Balut.
6)
We
are currently pending Paul Ferriero the borough engineer’s review and
approval, which was a condition by the Bernardsville PB; nothing back from Mr.
Ferriero yet; since we’re tying into existing town drainage system, we have to
get the Bernardsville Borough to endorse our wetlands permits.
7)
Not
in position to comment at this point; will review with Mr. Balut.
8)
Not
in position to comment at this point; will review with Mr. Balut.
9)
Not a
problem.
10)
Not a
problem.
11)
Disagree;
this is acceptable under the RSIS standards; Mr. Villa to research
definitiveness and advise Planning Board where it’s been done before with
similar loads.
12)
Additional
notes and detail will be added to identify swails so there is no
misunderstanding; will review during site visit to see if there is a need for
additional drainage berms.
D.
Fire Prevention
1)
Will
review with Mr. Balut; will also contact New Jersey American regarding
possibility of using pressurized water mains for fire protection and potable
water versus fire tanks and private wells.
2)
Shown
on slope map.
3)
Not a
problem.
4)
Have
initial review letter from Mr. Betz; if there are any additional comments from
Mr. Betz, they will be responded to.
E.
Drainage Report
1)
No
comment needed.
2)
Will
be corrected if it is required; will make negligible change in calculations.
3)
Will
review further; can be handled and addressed satisfactorily.
Mr.
Balut stated that the last paragraph in his letter summarizes the three basic
concerns that he was with the subdivision; 1) he would have liked to have seen a
concept plan before this was engineered; 2) the extension of Beverly Drive
creates a hardship on existing residents of Beverly Drive, noting that it has
existed there since 1977 and will create an additional 10 lots, increase traffic
and eliminate the cul-de-sac; and 3) the access from public road C off of
Hardscrabble is a problem. The location adjacent to the little house and
detention basin could be accessed from within from the road off of public road
B. Mr. Balut further stated that, from an engineering standpoint, he would have
looked at this to access all the lots in the subdivision from the current
entrance into Spring Tree Farm, but recognized that this does not work with the
applicant’s phasing stages.
Mr.
Trawinski stated that they had looked at alternative layouts but are mindful of
the attempt to comply with the Master Plan and Ordinances and noted that the
Master Plan clearly contemplates the
Beverly Drive
extension. He
further stated that they were taking into account preserving the horse farm as
long as they can and bringing the road in where Mr. Balut suggested would
disturb the horse farm and buildings and would necessitate it going in the first
phase. Mr. Trawinski said that they are willing to work with the Planning Board
and the public in terms of trying to achieve a better balance and noted that
they believe this plan makes the most sense.
Discussion
then ensued regarding the circulation plan, the RSIS, and the zoning changes,
and Messrs. Villa and Balut will discuss further after the site visit.
Chairman
Giordano then called for a five-minute break.
Chairman
Giordano reconvened the meeting at
9:55 p.m.
, and it was
requested that Mr. Kimball review his report dated
April 10, 2003
.
Mr.
Kimball noted that the first page of his report provides a description of the
application. He then referred to the second page and under the Regulatory
Requirements section, he requested elaboration on the abandonment of the
equestrian farm when it gets below 100 acres and what is to become of the
extensive improvements associated with the equestrian farm.
Mr.
Trawinski stated that this is a topic for discussion with the Board and the
Historic Preservation Committee.
Mr.
Kimball then referred to the RSIS and its specifications for the length of a
cul-de-sac based on traffic volume and requested that Mr. Villa provide a sheet
with the calculations so that it can be confirmed that they are within the
standards.
Mr.
Kimball referred to the next section regarding the Master Plan goals and
suggested that the Planning Board review this portion of the report.
Mr.
Kimball then referred to page 3, the Master Plan Roads section, and pointed out
that the current circulation plan shows a connection from both
Beverly Drive
to this
subdivision connecting through to
Cobblefield Drive
. He further
pointed out that the considerations that went into this connection have changed
fundamentally and noted that any connection to Cobblefield for environmental
reasons would be difficult. The applicant is not proposing this but it will
become germane in later comments particularly recommendations from the
Historical Committee.
Mr.
Kimball stated that the Appendix to the Master Plan lists existing
Lot
42 as one of the
lots that should be preserved for public open space. The reason for that
preservation in the Master Plan is “a link to Lewis Morris Park,” and this
is the section of the Master Plan that designates lots pursuant to the MLUL
section, and he deferred to Mr. Falcon on the implications of that reservation
on the Planning Board’s actions and as a part of any resolution. Mr. Falcon
will provide comment on this at a later time. Mayor Pierson stated that this
would require agreement from Mr. Bartenstein also.
Mr.
Kimball then referred to the next section of his report, Comments and
Recommendations, and he chose to aggregate three of them into an overall
discussion of alternate design. He recommended that an alternative design be
considered to reduce the roadway length by almost one mile, which would benefit
the Township’s goals, the environmental community character preservation
goals, and the applicant from a cost point of view and make the application more
attractive.
Mr.
Kimball concurred with Mr. Balut in his second recommendation regarding roadway
layout and suggested that a different access arrangement would make a more
attractive layout in terms of the Township’s goals and the applicant’s
marketability of the development.
Mr.
Kimball’s third recommendation relating to alternative design is #6, the
Historic Preservation Committee’s recommendation that the open fields that are
highly visible be preserved from development. The HPC recommended that the
actual development be concentrated internally in the property in areas that are
not as visible. Mr. Kimball noted that this is the most sweeping of the
recommendations and suggested that an alternate design, as presented in the last
Planning Board Workshop Meeting, could have great benefits for both the Township
and the applicant and make for a more attractive development that is more in
keeping with the rural character of the area.
Chairman
Giordano then asked Mr. Trawinski if, in consultation with Mr. Villa and Mr.
Irene, had considered such alternative design.
Mr.
Trawinski stated that the problems with almost all of the designs is that they
necessitated variances or waivers, but added that if Mr. Kimball or Mr. Balut
have specific suggestions, they are willing to sit down and consider them. He
further stated that one overriding issue they tried to stay away from with
respect to circulation design was connecting the other portion of Cobblefield
via Liddell in any fashion at all because of the fear that it would become a
cut-through to Tempe Wick. He said the applicant is willing to meet with Messrs.
Kimball, Balut and Aubin to discuss alternatives.
Discussion
then ensued regarding the actions that would need to be taken by the Township
Committee to facilitate the alternative design options. Mr. Kimball stated that
this could be done by Ordinance or by way of variances, but noted that a zoning
amendment is the preferable method. Chairman Giordano asked Mayor Pierson and
Mr. D’Emidio if alternative design is something the Township Committee would
consider. Mayor Pierson said that both the Planning Board and the Township
Committee had favorably received the presentation on lot size averaging by Mr.
Kimball. Mayor Pierson suggested the possibility of reconstituting the Master
Plan Subcommittee to review the alternative design concept as perhaps being the
next logical extension of the Master Plan for future developments. The Mayor
stated that it is clear to the Planning Board that the applicant has submitted a
16 lot subdivision that by right can be done, but suggested that the applicant
consider this option and its benefits and advise the Planning Board of his
reaction.
Mr.
Tolley mentioned that the Master Plan reconstituted a couple of years ago
contemplated lot size averaging and looked forward to creative abilities to
develop land in the future.
Mr.
Irene stated that he had looked at a lot of different alternatives for the
property he purchased over eight years ago, which is mostly in his name but is
also held via a family partnership. He said he wanted to build his house on the
property but could not do it at the time. He started looking at his options and
took a lot of things into consideration. He said he started this process well
over two years ago, hired very competent experts, and tried to balance a lot of
things in the process. He would like to build his home close to his family, and
it has been really difficult because the horse farm has been a real challenge.
He is interested and concerned about his investment, and he has had to put a lot
of money in the horse farm to subsidize it. He would like to build his house,
have neighbors that respect him, and he has tried to be sensitive to everyone as
he went down this path. He stated that he is pretty far down the road with this
plan, and he is not saying he wouldn’t consider these other alternatives, but
this is a conforming plan and he is cognizant of the lack of waivers. Mr. Irene
said that Mr. Villa assured him that he was doing it according to Township
regulations, and he feels that he is asking for what he is entitled to and
incorporated the different phases to satisfy all of the people that enjoy his
property now. He is trying to keep the horse farm as long as he can, and is
looking for some sort of comfort that the property at some time rejuvenates the
horse farm. He would like to continue the horse farm but it is an economic
drain. Phase 1 does not affect the horse farm at all, and if all the phases
worked, he would continue to stay in operation, and at some point, if it
doesn’t make sense, he would not continue to keep it. Mr. Irene reiterated
that he did look at some of these other options, and he thinks it is a low
probability that he would be convinced that lot size averaging would be
something that would work for his property. He further stated that he would
prefer not to get derailed from his plan at this point in time, and there are
other issues with the horse farm that would not work for him. He said he has put
two years of time, effort and money into this, and he understands this is a
process and wants to sit down and talk with the experts, but he also wants to
move forward.
Mayor
Pierson acknowledged that Mr. Irene has the right to do that, but if he wants to
contemplate this option, it is available. The Mayor indicated that the lot size
averaging concept will be pursued for future development.
Mr.
Trawinski said that in fairness to the Mayor, certain members of the Township
Committee have approached Mr. Trawinski asking to have a discussion on these
issues. Mr. Trawinski, out of fear of running afoul of technical and procedural
concerns, wanted to make sure that any such discussions were not running afoul
of any Open Public Meetings Act issues. However, now that it had come up in a
public setting, both he and the applicant are more than willing to undertake
those discussions.
Chairman
Giordano confirmed that the proper parties will meet and will advise the
Planning Board and the public of the outcome of those discussions.
Mr.
Trawinski stated that his client will call the Mayor to proceed expeditiously.
Chairman
Giordano discussed the need for a walk thru of the property as a public meeting,
and it was scheduled for April 29, with a rain date of April 30.
Chairman
Giordano stated that this hearing will be continued on May 21, where we will
proceed with the balance of Mr. Kimball’s report, and proposed that any
questions for Mr. Villa be held until that time. Chairman Giordano reiterated
that there will be discussions between the applicant, members of the governing
body and the experts, and modifications to the plan will need to be made as a
result of this evening’s discussions. Mr. Trawinski noted that he does not
envision a resubmission by May 21.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman
Giordano referred to the correspondence items, and there was no discussion.
HEARING PERSONS PRESENT
Mr.
Jim Banko,
81 Old Mill Road
, Block 113,
Lot
2: Mr. Banko said
that his property had been rezoned from 5 to 10 acres, and he has 21+ acres. He
inquired as to the need for a driveway or a road for 2 ten-acre lots -- one of
the lots would be for his son to build a home on. The Planning Board and
professionals were not familiar with Mr. Banko’s property, and it was
suggested that Mr. Banko obtain a rough plan and bring it to the TRC for
guidance and advice, and then move forward with hiring the appropriate experts.
Mr. Banko also had questions about building a greenhouse, and it was suggested
that he contact the Building Official.
CLOSED SESSION
Mr.
Tolley made a motion to adopt Resolution PB-03-12 Authorizing Closed Session;
Mr. Mountain seconded the motion, vote all aye.
Upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Committee returned to open session at 11:15
p.m
There
being no further business, Mayor Pierson made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. D’Emidio seconded the motion, vote all aye, and the meeting was
adjourned at
11:15 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Hope
Warrington, Secretary
| 
