|
The meeting of the Mendham Township Planning
Board was called to order at
7:32 p.m.
ROLL
CALL:
Present:
Mr. Giordano, Mr. Tolley, Mayor Porter, Mr. D’Emidio, Mr. Buchanan,
Mrs.
Kinsel, Mr. Majorossy, Mr. Timpson, Mr. Mountain
Also
Present: Mr. Falcon, Attorney;
Mr. Kimball, Planner; Mr. Balut, Engineer;
Chairman Giordano called the meeting to
order.
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 4, 2002
. Notice was posted on the bulletin
board in the Township Hall in
Brookside
,
New Jersey
on
January 4, 2002
, and Notice was filed with the Township Clerk on
January 4, 2002
.
MINUTES
–
April 1, 2002
– moved, seconded, and carried
to approve. Mr. D’Emidio
abstained.
Chairman Giordano requested
Mr. Trawinski’s approval for the Board to hear the
Bello
case first, and it was granted.
BELLO/HOYT RESOLUTION PB-01-7
Rowland V. Lucid, Jr., attorney for the
applicant, gave his credentials. He
explained the two primary reasons it became necessary to extend the resolution
date were: (1) the lengthy process of house design selection and (2) an error in
flagging the wetlands, which lead to developing new plans.
As a result it was necessary to file a new application with the DEP for
an LOI and revised area transition waiver. Approval
is pending.
Mr. Giordano confirmed that the statute
allowed a year extension if good cause was shown.
Now it is up to the Board to decide if the explanation presented
qualifies for an extension.
Mrs. Kinsel asked if the conservation
easement still exists. Mr. Lucid
responded that it did exist, and he would request that the surveyor superimpose
the easement area on the final plan. He
will also prepare an easement agreement when construction is underway.
Mr. Balut will follow up. The
easement had not been included in the original resolution.
A motion to approve Resolution PB-02-10
authorizing the one-year extension until
April 18, 2003
, was made by Mr. D’Emidio, seconded by Mr. Tolley, vote
all aye.
Mr. Falcon cautioned Mr.
Lucid that an extension is allowed only one time.
DR.
KO
Edward J. Trawinski represented the
applicant and stated his credentials. This
is an application for final subdivision approval.
In preparation for this meeting, it was brought to his attention by Mr.
Weber, purchaser of the neighboring property, that there might be some boundary
issues affecting the Weber and Ko properties.
Primarily, these issues can be resolved between the two parties, but two
issues would require Board approval.
On the adjoining easterly and westerly
boundaries of the properties there exists a 10-foot wide conservation easement
at the Board’s request. Mr. Weber
asked to have it extend the full length along that easterly boundary.
The applicant is prepared to extend the easement to the end, but would
voluntarily extend the easement even further so it would end at the same
location as the water line easement In
drafting the new easement, Mr. Trawinski will make it clear that this will not
prohibit or interfere with the water line easement which allows service to the
Weber property.
The other item Mr. Trawinski is presenting
to the board involves a Right-of-Way easement from approximately 1956 given by
Mr. Pitney, which ran for the benefit of the Ko property up to the Weber
property. It currently serves no
purpose and needs to be terminated. Mr.
Villa’s firm will work with the Weber surveyor to accomplish this.
Mr. Giordano summarized the three points
presented: (1) the water line will take precedence, (2) the applicant will
extend the current conservation easement to run through the end of the water
line easement, and (3) the applicant and Mr. Weber agree in requesting to
extinguish the Right-of-Way easement.
Mr. Aubin expressed concern about the
compatibility of both a conservation and water line easement existing
concurrently. Mr. Giordano believes
it would work favorably.
Mr. Giordano requested consultant reports.
Mr. Balut began with a summary of his report
dated April 8, 2002.
Mr. Kimball referenced his report dated
March 12, 2002. He asked Mr. Villa
if there were any substantial changes to the final plans versus the preliminary.
Mr. Villa responded final plans were in compliance with his
recommendations. Mr. Kimball further
stipulated the need to include specific provisions of the easements on the final
map or as separate deeds.
Mr. Trawinski agreed to prepare separate
easement deeds, which would be subject to Mr. Balut’s review.
Mrs. Kinsel requested correct street name
spellings be confirmed as accurate.
Mr. Aubin presented his report dated April
11, 2002, stating all the environmental requirements were met.
Mr. Giordano pointed out that this case is
still under judicial review. He
wanted to know how the applicant would view the Board’s action today in light
of a future Court decision. Mr.
Trawinski stated both the applicant and the Board must comply regardless of
whether approval is given by the Board at this session.
Mrs. Kinsel wanted clarification about what
is under judicial review. Mr.
Trawinski responded he would be appealing the two decisions he lost.
He stated the Judge had ruled: (1) beds be paid for and installed before
construction is not enforceable, (2) FAR restrictions apply to this subdivision,
and (3) construction drawings between preliminary and final can be required.
Mr. Buchanan expressed his continued concern
about the vote of approval at the March 13, 2001, Planning Board meeting and
about Dr. Ko’s apparent improper rental activity on the property.
He sees a lack of forthrightness. Mr.
Trawinski said he was not consulted, and the matter was not in his authority.
Mr. Mountain will follow up with the Zoning
Officer and report results to the Township Committee.
Mrs. Porter questioned whether the Historic
Preservation Committee had reviewed the plans.
Yes, Mr. Maw did approve them.
Mrs. Kinsel wanted to know if they had a
specific water service commitment. Mr.
Trawinski said they had a general commitment.
He referred to the condition of approval in Mr. Kimball’s letter.
Discussion ensued about principal residence
designation of the mansion. Mr.
Trawinski indicated the deed would not allow for further subdivision.
The meeting was opened to the public.
Mr. Weber, 131 Mendham Road, confirmed his
agreement with Mr. Trawinski’s proposal. Additionally,
his observation indicates the property line on the Ko map appears to go through
the tree line and into their driveway. Mr.
Villa’s firm will revise diagrams.
Mrs. Link stated it was her understanding
the mansion was to be a single-family residence only and also could not be
subdivided.
The meeting was closed to the public.
Mr. Balut indicated the map needed to be
changed to reflect the new owner.
Motion was made by Mr. D’Emidio to
authorize Mr. Falcon to prepare a resolution of approval, seconded by Mayor
Porter, carried to approve. Mr.
Buchanan, Mrs. Kinsel, Mr. Majorossy and Mr. Timpson abstained.
ORDINANCE 4-2002
Mr. Falcon opened the discussion indicating
he had spoken to Mr. Clapp at great length about this new subsection relating to
off-tract improvements and inspection of improvements.
Everyone is satisfied it goes beyond the standard language, is aggressive
in its approach, and is consistent with the Master Plan.
Mr. Tolley made a motion to accept
Resolution PB-02-09, Mr. Buchanan seconded, with a vote
of all aye.
MEMORIALIZING
RESOLUTION PB-02-11
Master
Plan Adoption
Motion was made to accept by Mr. Tolley,
seconded by Mr. Mountain, vote all aye.
Mr. D’Emidio abstained.
HEARING PERSONS PRESENT
Discussion was opened to the public.
Mr. Staiti, 15 Horizon Drive, asked the
status of the cell tower application.
Mr. Falcon summarized the situation.
The Judge ruled Mendham Township’s Ordinance invalid.
The applicant requested a suspension.
All parties needed to read Judge Stanton’s ruling before the Planning
Board reacts.
CORRESPONDENCE
·
NJPO Invitation, May 17, 2002
·
Mendham Golf & Tennis Club Letters
·
Stormwater Video Available
·
Master Plan Press Release
·
Board of Adjustment Annual Report
ADJOURN
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 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lillian Smith, Secretary
| 
