 |
|
|
|
MINUTES Mr. Giordano called the meeting to order at ROLL CALL: Present:
Mr. Giordano, Mr. Tolley, Mr. Pierson, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain, Mr.
D’Emidio, Mayor Krieg (arrived at Also Present: Mr. Kimball, Mr. Lemanowizc and Mr. Falcon Salute to the Flag Statement of Adequate Notice Mr. Giordano: The
first application and the only application is Mr. Masefield, application 04-04.
We were planning to start with the Chief of Police or his surrogate since
he’s not here as of this time we actually do have a report from Mr. Kimball
just for the sake of everyone understanding we have the Chief of Police coming
this evening, we also have two fire experts and are planning to do those three.
Mr. Kimball, however, was asked a question by members of the board last
time so, and he wrote a report, which we just received, and Mr. Kimball, why
don’t you give us the benefit of your thoughts Mr. D’Emidio made a motion to approve the minutes of (Mayor Krieg arrived at this point) Mr. Tolley suggested, that since the Board has a letter
from Mr. Giordano asked Mr. Richard Traynor, representing June Cioppettini, to begin his motion. Mr. Traynor: I would just like to, before we begin, bring an issue up with the Board for their consideration. It’s come to our attention that the letter, one of the letters that was signed, I think it was the June 15th letter, was signed by Mr. Tolley in his representation, his position as Fire Chief of Brookside and it is our feeling, that because he took a position, prior to hearing testimony on the through street issue, which we believe has become the central issue of this case, that he’s therefore biased as to whether there should be through street or not. We therefore would ask the Board to consider, or Mr. Tolley to consider recusing himself from this matter, from voting on this matter, as we do believe that there is a potential conflict here. Mr. Giordano: Mr. Falcon, could you help us by weighing in a little bit? Mr. Falcon: I received Mr. Traynor’s letter on Friday on this issue and while I appreciate the position that he takes and I understand where he’s coming from, and unfortunately, as he noted in his correspondence, there is no ………decision that has passed on this issue. We’re kind of left to Bill Cox’s treatise on the issue as to what constitutes a conflict and when members ought to recuse themselves. In the final analysis, having read the statute that Mr. Traynor cited as well as the treatise materials it strikes me that Mr. Tolley’s role in reviewing the application when it was referred out, as these applications are, to the various agencies within the Township, that it’s likened to the situation that involves Mrs. Link, for example, when the Environmental Commission reviews an application or when Mr. Timpson was a member he would inform the Board as to what the position of the Historic Commission was and that reviewing a matter in that capacity is really an advisory matter. There are almost inevitably these situations arise when members of the Board sit on other agencies in the community for that matter, of course, as a matter of statute, their are members of the governing body that are here. So, I think that where Cox ends up on this issue, he talks environmental and historic preservation commissions and he says as to members of environmental or historic preservation commissions on a land use board hearing matters that have been considered by the commissions, it’s a more difficult call. Those commissions’ role is purely advisory and so cannot be said to have a direct interest in the matter before the board, nevertheless the potential for an appearance of conflict is present. It is problematic that the very people who so often review these applications in other agencies of the community are on the board and called upon to decide it, but I think everyone on this board has a pretty clear understanding of their distinct role. There it’s to take an advisory look at an application and make recommendations, here it’s to decide a case. And so on balance, my advice would be that there is no controlling law or compelling reason that would require Mr. Tolley to recuse himself. If Mr. Tolley were to be of the view that he really could not consider the thing impartially notwithstanding the existence of a law that would require him to step down, then he could always that course of action, but I don’t see that he is compelled to do so by any controlling law. Mr. Tolley: Mr. Chairman, I certainly concur with the comments of our counsel and I certainly do view my role as the fire chief totally separate and distinct from the planning board as well as my past role on the township committee where we actually created the circulation element. They’re all distinct and disparate roles and I’m here tonight to hear exactly the commentary and make a decision on that basis. Mr. Traynor: I appreciate that and by no means an I trying to infer that you would do anything other than act impartially. However, I feel that because the position of the fire department on this issue of the through street is so strong and because it has become such a critical issue it goes a little bit beyond sort of the normal advisory roles that different individuals may take who also sit on the planning board and so while I don’t mean to imply that you wouldn’t act impartially I think it would be, I think it’s almost impossible not to do that once you’ve sort of taken a position and are espousing certain opinions it difficult to step back and say ok now I’ll review it impartially based on some other evidence. That being said I would just again ask that I think it would be probably the more prudent and conservation course to recuse yourself in this instance. Mr. Tolley: Mr. Chairman, acknowledging your comments I’m not going to take that step. Mr. Giordano: just so that the record is clear, Mr. Tolley is taking a position that he of course can adjudicate this in a fair and unbiased manner and will in no way be prejudice, actually, Mr. Traynor, we also have another member of the fire department sitting on the board, so there are actually two… Mr. Traynor: I understand that. Mr. Giordano: with that having been said the only thing that I feel constrained to do is just mention that if any member of the board were to feel otherwise or feel that it puts the board at risk in terms of a specific conflict, I’m not assuming any nor do I see any, but just mentioning that a board member could make a motion to tell Mr. Tolley. Is there any need for such a motion? Seeing none I think… Mr. D’Emidio: I just have a comment. You stated that the fire department’s position is so strong on this issue. All I’ve seen is one letter. I’ve heard no testimony so I don’t know how we can characterize their position at this point. Mr. Traynor: There’s actually two letters and one of them was, and then the second letter basically elaborated on the first letter and I think it’s somewhat unusual to see a two page letter from a fire department on a subdivision, at least in my experience. Mr. D’Emidio: I don’t think it’s unusual at all for this planning board. I think that’s the norm here. I think it’s premature to characterize their position…you haven’t even heard any testimony yet, Mr. Traynor. Mr. Traynor: is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this? Mr. Giordano: Mr. Traynor, I think is just a motion, we really don’t have time for public commentary at this point. I’d like to move on with the rest of the testimony from the experts so we have a motion denied. Mr. Trawinski, are you here? Only because I knew it was at your specific request …Lt. Hughes, if you could come forward, sir, and I apologize, we don’t have…could you drag a chair up…thanks.. Lt. , please, good evening and before we have anybody sworn in I just…one of the reasons you’re here is a letter written, memo written by the Chief on this application so I assume you’ve seen it or I can give you a copy now. Lt. Hughes: I have it. Mr. Giordano: Actually I think Mr. Betz is also in the audience. At the same time…(to Mr. Traynor) do you have an expert? (Mr. Falcon sworn in Lt. Hughes and Mr. Betz) Mr. Giordano: Lt. Hughes, you were basically asked to come in, I believe, by one of the objector’s counsel, Mr. Trawinski, and he just have some questions for you regarding the Chief’s comments on the cul-de-sac and also, subsequent to that, the board may just have some questions about the concept of a cul-de-sac vs. a through street. (discussion re: exhibits numbering) Would you describe it for the record, Mr. Trawinski. Mr. Trawinski: B-3: Mendham Township Planning Board memorandum; a series of entities, I gather, that gets circulated to routinely, including environmental commission, historic commission, tree committee, fire official, police, public works, it’s review application 04-04, the applicant is Masefield, it recites the block and lot, 100, 52; it has a hand written date up on the right hand corner 9/20/04 and signed by signature indicated to be the chief of police dated October 12, 2004. Mr. Giordano: would you kindly mark that as B-3 and today’s date, 4/4. Mr. Trawinski: Lt., I sorry to drag you out, I thought the board routinely accepted the memorandum of its committees as part of the record but it came to my surprise that it’s not the case in this matter. Mr. Giordano: Lt., that’s ok, you can ticket his car all you want…don’t worry about what he says.. (laughter) Mr. Trawinski: (to Lt. Hughes) I’m going to show you what purports to be a copy of a report submitted by the police chief to the planning board and ask you if you can identify it, first of all, as the signature that’s on this copy, a signature that you’re familiar with? Lt. Hughes: Yes, that’s Chief Costanza’s signature. Mr. Trawinski: Thank you, and can you indicate to the board what the Chief’s comments were in respect to this application. Lt. Hughes: The Chief’s comments under #2 is I suggest you keep Wright Lane a cul-de-sac, extended if needed/wanted but for safety, traffic and controlling practices, I would not extend to Carriage Hill. Mr. Trawinski: That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to offer B-3 as evidence. Mr. Giordano: Any objection. So accepted, thank you Mr. Trawinski. Any questions from members of the board for the Lt.? Mr. Pierson: There might be a clarification from the Lt. What is the Chief’s reasoning behind that? Mr. Trawinski: I object to that…it’s heresay and the Chief is not here to testify. Mr. Pierson: A good point. Lt. do you agree with that and if so, why? Lt. Hughes: I support the Chief’s opinion on that based on some simple principals such as it’s…I have a master’s degree in police science from John J. College and researchers will argue the fact that more access and exits points a road or development has, the crime rate does increase. Mr. Pierson: Thank you. Mr. Giordano: Further questions? Mr. Tolley: I have a question. This doesn’t really speak to crime. This speaks to safety but it also speaks to traffic and patrolling practices. Is it your testimony that it’s safer to have a cul-de-sac, two cul-de-sacs for patrolling than to have a through street in that regard? Lt. Hughes: Well, for crime, which is a paramount concern of police, it is safer to have a cul-de-sac, yes. In as far as traffic safety, it is also safe because you do not have cut through traffic. You have…what is nice about a cul-de-sac it keeps the street or development exclusive. The people know who’s traveling up and down the roads, they can almost police themselves. If they see a neighbor that’s going a little fast they can actually address it in that manner and assist the police. Back in November of 04 we had an incident which showed how good cul-de-sacs could be. We had an individual running through town exposing himself to female joggers and the description we had of the vehicle was a blue jeep and one of the women on a cul-de-sac who was a victim three or four days earlier observed a blue jeep pass her house and she went out and got into a position where she’d actually see the license plate number of the vehicle as it came back down, she new it was going to come back down and we brought the person in for questioning and he subsequently confessed to all the acts of lewdness. It gives our residents almost a second bite of the apple, you could say, to see that maybe they know who belongs and who does not belong. That’s why cul-de-sacs are a good idea from that aspect. Mr. Tolley: So, what you’re saying in all aspects of police work it’s better to have cul-de-sacs than through roads. Lt. Hughes: No, sir, I’m not saying that. Mr. Tolley: I’m just trying to understand because this is pretty expansive. What areas would you say it’s better to have a through street on then, from police standpoint? Lt. Hughes: Well, that would be more for your city planners and such. I focused on the two main duties that we have as a law enforcement agency that is reduction in maintenance in crime rates and traffic safety and the safety of our residents. Mr. Giordano: Any further questions for the Lt.? Mayor Krieg: Just a follow-up, Mr. Tolley. Have you found where there are cut-through streets there tends to more speeding or a higher incident of safety, or if someone is running late, if there’s a cut-through, is that, does that become a shortcut which would be more prone to speeding in a rush hour than not? Lt. Hughes: It certainly depends upon the area, but I would argue the point that with a through street there is a greatly opportunity to speed that there would be in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Giordano: Lt., just one for me, so that we have a record, what about with respect to other items of safety. I assume that in a town such as Mendham Township you, ladies and gentlemen are probably the sort of the first line in terms of people how they call you before they call anybody else for just about everything. Can you think of any incidences where it might have been the round about way to get some place is a little bit more time consuming in a matter of getting oxygen to somebody or stop a bleeding incident before an ambulance gets there? Lt. Hughes: Sure, a response time is an issue and quite often people who are seriously considering that area of Mendham Township will call on the phone…how’s the crime rate, how’s this….and I will tell them that it’s one of the best areas of the Township as far as crime rate and safety, however, the one negative point that I always bring out to those possible buyers is the fact that response time is an issue in the southwest portion of the Township. Mr. Giordano: Thank you sir. Anything further? Mr. Mountain: Lt., do you know if the Chief, in coming up with his recommendation, took response time into account or was he looking at it primarily through the reasons that you were addressing… Mr. Giordano: You can’t ask what the Chief…. Mr. Mountain: In your opinion, do you feel that response time is an issue in this particular case? Lt. Hughes: I thought of it when I reviewed the file and I was surprised to actually see that Saddle Hill Road kind of veered back towards the north which without seeing it from aerial map view I assumed that Saddle Hill would go straight or possibly even bend to the southwest which would then make it certainly a reasonable assumption that response time would be reduced to the northeast cul-de-sac of Carriage Hill. But that wasn’t the case when Saddle Hill actually bowed back towards the north so I really don’t see much of a difference in response time and I would rather have my patrol units exceeding the speed limit, which is justified by law, on Roxiticus Road which is one of the more major arteries of the Township, certainly that portion, than going up Saddle Hill and through Wright Lane, which where the homeowners would have a little bit of an expectation of a quiet safe road. I’m sure the children would be more apt to be playing in the front yard and such. Mr. Mountain: More specifically to one of the concerns the fire department has expressed, access, in your experience with responses to fire scenes where there is a lot of apparatus, in your opinion, is it a more difficult response issue on a cul-de-sac road from a access standpoint? Lt. Hughes: Certainly I’ve had no experience in firefighting, but certainly if there were a fire on that road, the apparatus would certainly congest the road rather quickly. Mr. Mountain: Is the potential access, in your opinion, in this case, made significantly worse by the fact that if this was left as a cul-de-sac road vs. a through street being created? Lt. Hughes: For the police department certainly not. It actually makes it a little bit easier for patrolling practices because we can then block off a roadway when we see what’s coming down and up it. From a fire department aspect it could be difficult, it could close a road down, but most structure fires we’re closing the road down anyway, whether it be Roxiticus, whether it be Ironia, just for safety of the firefighters and running of hoses and such like that, we’re shutting it down to maintain the integrity of the scene. Mr. D’Emidio: Lt., it that neighborhood of Saddle Hill and Carriage Hill, has there been any, the neighborhood is about 20 years old, about…. Lt. Hughes: I have 19 years on…. Mr. D’Emidio: OK, then I was pretty close…only 5% off…30 years old? To your knowledge has there been any incidences, police incidences, where a through street would have helped the police department in the history that you’ve been on the force? Lt. Hughes: I cannot recall any. It’s a very very quiet area. Mr. Giordano: Lt. thank you very much for your courtesy…in a technical sense, we have the ability to have the objectors, who technically called you, to cross-examine you. Mr. McCabe, I saw you jumping up….I’m sorry…I forget…only because Mr. Trawinski started…I was making the assumption that it was done from that standpoint. Mr. McCabe: (to Lt. Hughes) do you have any idea approximately how many cul-de-sacs there are in the Township? Lt. Hughes: No, sir. I would have to guess, there are several. Mr. McCabe: According to my count, there’s actually in excess of 100 throughout the town which is a pretty expansive area and the particular ones that we’re talking about happen to be over here (points out on map). In your 19 years of being on the force has there ever been a time that you couldn’t gain access either to Hunters Glen, Carriage Hill or Saddle Hill on those 30’ wide roads? Lt. Hughes: Not that I recall, no. Mr. McCabe: You made a comment earlier that the crime rate could be reduced with cul-de-sacs. Lt. Hughes: That’s what the research has indicated, yes. Mr. McCabe: There’s
approximately 100 or more cul-de-sacs in this town.
This is a document from the newspaper and it gives the statistics for
crime by town dated 1014/04. If you’d just scan the sheet for me, ok, Lt. Hughes: Off the top of my head I believe we’re either the first or second lowest in the county. Mr. Giordano: If it’s ok, Mr. McCabe, we’re going to mark this B-4 of ID at this time. Lt. Hughes: We
have Mr. McCabe: This basically backs up what you learned in college and what you’re proposing here is that because of the nature of the layout of cul-de-sacs, you believe that has some impact on crime, whether the neighbors are reporting it or criminals are uncomfortable here, but we’re fortunate to have very low crime rate. Lt. Hughes: That and the quality of our residents, there no committing crimes either. (laughter) Mr. McCabe: That’s all I have. Thank you very much. Mr. Giordano: Further questions of the Lt.? The Board thanks you very much for your time and consideration. (applause) See, it’s only the politicians that don’t get the applause, right? Mr. Betz, if you’d like to come forward. As you are aware, one of the items that is left before the Board, is the object of one of your reports and also the fire department chiefs’ reports and we’re interested in your opinion. Mr. Betz: Actually,
there were three letters that were written regarding this particular situation
and there has been public hearings in the past which I have spoken at outlining
the position of the fire department regarding cul-de-sacs.
Cul-de-sacs are a major issue with the fire service in this community.
We can too document situations that have arose in cul-de-sacs vs. roads
that two access points. A perfect
example would be the fire in Mr. Giordano: Questions from the Board? Mayor Krieg: This is my first time through one of these. You say for 20 years now you’ve been detailing issues and wanting to have roads interconnected and such for circulation, I think that’s the term you used. In how many cases over the 20 years has this circulation been implemented? Mr. Betz: I mean, with situations like with Pitney Farm and how that was set up having a circulation loop around that space, where else have we seen…Drakewick..the design of that. Brookrace, we really didn’t have a capability there to bring in a second route, we have advantages with Brookrace, it is a dead end and it is a serious issue to us. The road was widened, parking is prohibited on one side but most of all we have sufficient water supply on that road that eliminates the need for these multiple apparatus from many municipalities coming in to assist us. The capabilities of the Township department and our adjoining communities could handle an incident within Brookrace. I think you have to separate, to some extent, a public fire protection water supply vs. a rural operation and that makes a big difference between these two situations we might look at with Brookrace and a dead end and Carriage Hill and Saddle Hill with dead ends. Mayor Krieg: Is there going to be a cistern, I believe there’s a cistern established in this subdivision. Mr. Betz: There would be an additional cistern. Mayor Krieg: And how many gallons would that be? Mr. Betz: That would be 30,000 gallons Mayor Krieg: And how long would that last you in fighting a blaze, you said 1000 gallons a minute, that would give you 30 minutes of fire… Mr. Betz: 30 minutes of actual fire flow for most of these residences is more in the neighborhood of 1500-1800 gallons a minute. Mayor Krieg: So you have about 20 minutes worth of water. So if there were additional cisterns put in there in order to supply more water that would give you say 45 minutes worth of fire protection from the cisterns, 2 cisterns let’s say, would that help alleviate the problem? Mr. Betz: The would alleviate the water supply problem to some extent but does not alleviate the situation of the access which is so key to ensure that when we take apparatus in, for instance, we’re going to need to have a ladder truck potentially in that neighborhood, which will be coming from a neighboring community. The access could be blocked by the initial response, it could be blocked by any number of factors, for instance, if you have cars along the street it would be blocking the potential for laying hose, setting up your drafting operation. The unfortunate part is cisterns are an alternative but they’re not an equal to public water supply. Mayor Krieg: I understand that and they can… Mr. Betz: And you have to look at, I believe, the entire concept of the operation and the key element is to have that second access in. Mayor Krieg: As far as response time, what would the difference be, and let us take a house somewhere just beyond the end of the current cul-de-sac, because you’re saying you could come from both directions beyond Mrs. Biczak’s or such home, how much difference in response time would there be with that second road? Mr. Betz: I doubt for the initial units going in it would be an appreciable difference. Mayor Krieg: So the road does not… Mr. Betz: For the secondary operations it would be primary.. Mayor Krieg: But the chief said before that they normally block off the roads so the vehicles can’t access anyhow at the fire scene to prevent vehicles explaining his position, can you explain to me the difference here is the road’s blocked whether it’s a cul-de-sac or a through road. Mr. Betz: The basic difference is the apparatus can’t travel through basically and pass the incident and gain additional way out so where is makes a big factor for us to be for the ambulance to get in and out and for tanker shuttle operation to also make that entrance and exit from a different point. You also have the situation of road conditions, weather conditions, there can be a situation when the apparatus gets in there you may not be able to pass another piece of apparatus if there’s been a heavy snowstorm or something of that nature. It could block up all the access, let’s say, from the north. Mayor Krieg: Has this frequently happened in the past, or has this happened in the past? Mr. Betz: It’s happened to the point where there have been incidents, take one on your street, for instance. Mr. Krieg: I live on a cul-de-sac, you’re getting me very nervous. Mr. Betz: This is a cul-de-sac, the first operation really with tankers and it was a serious situation because the winter conditions, ice and snow conditions, and it created a serious bottleneck in moving the apparatus.
Mr. Betz: We have to shuttle the water in at that point, now you have the public water. Mayor Krieg: OK, thank you. Mr. Pierson: For
information on one of the things he felt was deminimous, it is.
Driving a truck 25 mph up from Mr. Tolley: I
wanted also to provide information. The
Mayor had asked questions about what dead end cul-de-sacs have ever been
addressed relative to what we’re looking at tonight.
A number of years ago when we looked at circulation one of the roads that
was identified was Mr. Pierson: I’ve got questions and some follow up on what Mr. Tolley said. If we need these roads as they are now, I take it you would agree there is no diminution of safety? Mr. Betz: No, I disagree with that because there is. If we leave the roads as is, are you saying… Mr. Pierson: What I’m saying is we are not doing anything it will not cause any new slowness of road response or what have you. In not taking action it doesn’t get worse. Your point, I believe, is taking an action will improve the current standard but the current standard will not get worse if we take no action. Mr. Betz: And that would include no development. Mr. Pierson: I’ll go with that. Mr. Betz: I would say that’s most likely the case and that would also mean that there would be no future development anywhere off of Saddle Hill or Carriage Hill. Mr. Pierson: Unless it came through Peapack-Gladstone. Mr. Betz: The
potential might be there but it’s a private road at this point in time so
it’s extremely difficult to go. The
frontage, the public frontage is on Mr. Pierson: I
guess I take issue with one thing. You
said 30,000 gallons is to protect the firemen while searching.
I would agree with that for the first few minutes, but 30,000 gallons at
a 1,000 gallons a minute from not just one cistern but the two that will be on Mr. Betz: It’s a potent supply if you want to compare it to nothing or to a shuttle operation but it still does not meet the criteria, three of the four nationally accepted methods of fire flow calculations. Mr. Pierson: There’s no question it’s not as good as hydrants. We all agree with that. Mrs. Link: I’ve read all three letters, Mr. Betz, and my understanding is that the most critical issue is the issue of access, not water supply, not response time, it’s really access that you’re mostly concerned about. Is that correct? Mr. Betz: That would be correct from the perspective that with the cisterns, and in the ordinance we have for the cisterns, we have obtained a minimal protection for the fire service during that search and rescue procedure, so yes, the critical element in this plan is access. Mrs. Link: Yes, access. Suppose, let me just throw this out as an idea and see what your response is. Suppose Wright Lane were ended in a cul-de-sac and you put through a fire lane from the cul-de-sac to Carriage Hill, a gated fire lane that could be used in emergencies when you need access from both directions but would still address the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Betz: I’m not quite sure what the concern of the neighbors is… Mrs. Link: Well, the concerns of the neighbors is that they would like Wright Lane to end in a cul-de-sac for some reasonable reasons but I also feel that your testimony about the importance about access is equally important if not more so and I’m just looking for, perhaps, a compromise where we could have a cul-de-sac but we’d have a fire lane similar to the one that was just put in from Hilltop Circle to the elementary school that could be plowed by Dave Read, that could be kept open. Is there any problem why that wouldn’t work? Mr. Betz: Fire lanes, quite honestly, in my opinion, do not work. The fire lane that was put in for the elementary school already has failed once during an emergency situation. There are issues still with reference to maintenance of that. We have one other fire lane in the Township that, I guess we were naïve at that point in time, this is one that goes in off of Route 24 onto Cooper Lane. That particular stretch has not been maintained or plowed, we’ve had difficulties with that. We have had to use that particular fire lane during emergency situations. We had a situation where we had a number of trees down due to a thunderstorm. We had lightening strike. We had actual fire alarm activations going on. We had to call mutual aid. The Borough came in and had to cut their way through the fire lane to the gate. The biggest issue is maintenance and accessibility. There seems to be an assumption that the stretch of road is going to be maintained equal to the same as the street for maintenance, the snowplowing or ice mediation, I guess we could call it, so that would be that every time that the plow comes down Wright Lane the plow operator would have to get out, open the fire lane, plow the fire lane, lock it back up, move forward, (groans from audience) you have not been there, ladies and gentlemen, we have been there….so as far as I’m concerned it is not an equal and really not acceptable. We have to, you know we talk compromise and compromise is very nice, but we’re talking about people’s lives. We’re talking about the lives of residents, lives of the volunteers in the community and I think that we should be looking at good planning and forward thinking and a fire lane, in my opinion, is not equal to, nor is it close to an equal, to having a paved, maintained surface as you would with a public road. Mrs. Link: I don’t think I ever thought it would be equal but I thought it might be acceptable. Mr. Betz: Our history with it has proven that it’s not been the case. Mr. Tolley: It might be advantageous if you would just elaborate on what happened at the elementary school, for the public. Mr. Betz: Well,
we had the incident with a gas leak at the elementary school.
Our primary access was off of Mr. D’Emidio: Mr.
Betz, I fortunately or unfortunately, chaired most of the Brookrace hearings
several years ago. Wasn’t there a
fire lane put in off Mr. Betz: Yes, there was. Mr. D’Emidio: And how has that worked out? Mr. Betz: It has not worked out at all. The problem is the maintenance of it. There has been basically no year round maintenance of that fire lane. From the perspective of utilization of it, it is not even in our plan to use ??? Mr. D’Emidio: So you haven’t used it in a while? Mr. Betz: Have not used it at all. Mr. D’Emidio: In the whole ten years or whatever it is? It’s also very steep I believe. Mr. Betz: Very steep. It’s graveled. It’s a different scenario. It’s the basic maintenance for that. Mr. D’Emidio: Earlier you spoke about the apparatus. You brought a number of potentially 17 pieces of equipment… Mr. Betz: No, I said municipalities… Mr. D’Emidio: 17 municipalities, that would have to be a big fire. Mr. Betz: No, actually… Mr. D’Emidio: I’m not making a joke… Mr. Betz: I’m not either, you’d have to realize the size of these residences are well exceeding what a commercial establishment would be that is considered something that would be required to be sprinklered. We are fighting commercial fires, in essence, in residential buildings. Some of these are twice the size that would be required under the code if it was a commercial building. The second issue is that manpower is a serious issue and for a daytime fire it is not unusual to have that number of fire companies responding. It is just to bring additional personnel to the scene. Mr. D’Emidio: That was going to be my question. There’s several, and I see them in my neighborhood, in responses that may have turned out to be a false alarm or maybe, I forget the term my father used to use… Mr. Betz: We call them nuisance alarms.. Mr. D’Emidio: Food on the stove, whatever you guys call that kind of thing. But you said the vehicle or apparatus leaves the firehouse with whoever arrives quickly and jumps in the truck and drives to the site and then the other volunteers are coming in their own vehicles. How many vehicles, for a normal response, would there be five cars or personal vehicles, 10, 20, 30? Mr. Betz: Twenty would be the norm. Mr. D’Emidio: Where do you usually park those vehicles? Mr. Betz: Wherever we can…. Mr. D’Emidio: Do you park them on front lawns of people’s houses? Or are they parked in the street? Mr. Betz: There could be the possibility of that. It has be done at large evolutions in the area. In people’s driveways, trying to keep them off the road. There are cases where they just are, because of the distance between homes and the curbs there’s no way except to park in the street. Mr. D’Emidio: And I assume that would affect your shuttle operation. Mr. Betz: Very definitely, that has a major impact on it. Mr. D’Emidio: Are there standards for cul-de-sacs, fire-fighting standards for cul-de-sac lengths, in a rural community with no fire hydrants? Mr. Betz: In Mr. D’Emidio: Let
me ask you a question of that. Off
the immediate subject about the connection, but it’s going to come up at some
point in this, whether it comes up tonight, next month, six months from now, but
at some point in this hearing we’re going to make a decision on the road
width, either with a connector or with it not connected.
We’re looking at three different road widths, four actually, I think,
or three here…18, 20 and 24. Some roads have 30 but I believe Mr. Betz: In either case, whether it goes through or not, from a fire service perspective, from the perspective of all the operations that we’re talking about here, so ideal would be to continue the width Wright Lane is today through Carriage Hill. Mr. D’Emidio: The fire service recommendation? Mr. Betz: Correct. Mr. D’Emidio: I asked the Lt. and I’m going to ask you…in that neighborhood in the past 30 years, and I think you’ve been around longer than the Lt., have you had any instances where a connecting road up there would have made a difference, in that specific neighborhood. Mr. Betz: No, we have not had a situation there. We’ve had only minor instances, thank goodness, on that street. Mr. D’Emidio: I’m sure everybody’s glad for that. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mountain: Mr. Betz, I understand it’s your position in the fire company that the through street is the best option. In your opinion are there any other viable options for addressing fire safety that don’t involve a through street, in other words, I think I heard you say when you were talking about Brookrace, the cul-de-sacs there, because of a combination of road width and water supply, in that case, an issue was alleviated. Using this neighborhood as an example is there an other combination that we haven’t talked about that you think would be a viable option for providing that safety? Mr. Betz: If we
had a public water supply that would be consideration that we could give.
At this point in time there’s been no proposal at all to do that in
that neighborhood. With reference to
the other options or viable methods, I’m not aware of any other than,
there’s two factors I’m sort of. I have to address. One is the protection of
the residents in the homes that are to be built and the best way to protect the
residents in their homes is to have fully automatic sprinkler systems.
That does not address the neighborhood issue and we are looking at a good
portion of our community, 62 homes at present, this is not just a small little
neighborhood of 8 homes so we have to look at the big picture.
I grew up in this community and I’ve seen it develop to where it is
today. We’ve seen major changes and we have, in the past, maybe made some
mistakes and one of them, most likely, was not requiring more interconnections,
but most of these developments came at a point in time where it depending upon
what land was available and how it was pieced together.
What was planned out with Old Orchard was a perfect example of a very bad
situation that was made much better by the interconnection and as a matter of
fact when you look at the situation and compare the two they are almost
identical when it comes to any type of impact that it might have on the
community because the access of Old Orchard and Wildish Glen really is not
gaining anything by going through that development, it’s people thinking that
they’re doing a shortcut. The same is true with reference to this connection
between Mr. Mountain: I understand that and I think everybody here is interested in addressing, including the residents in the audience, addressing the concern but as Mrs. Link noted earlier everything we do up here is a balancing act and there are other concerns as well, you’ve heard some of which and some of which you’ve not heard. I think that is why you’re getting the questions about options, about other ways to address it because, myself as a board member, I want to know if there are other ways to get at the concern that can address the concerns of the fire company and also balance some of the other interests involved. Back to my original question, though, is there any scenario under which, without public water, that you would utilize as Mayor Krieg started to ask before, a cistern approach combined with greater access, perhaps, greater width, rather to gain greater access, that you could see the concern being addressed? Mr. Betz: I think that, you know, one of the baseline issues here is looking at the entire neighborhood and that’s the key. This is like, from my perspective, and I have been doing this for this community for over 22 years. I have plans myself, as to hydrant locations for every area of this community where there’s no water supply and people say that’s kind of stupid but you know how many times you and I have sat down and extended water mains to the development, to the projects, etc., and that’s been good planning from day one and this fits into that. This to me is so key I can hardly think of a more key location to provide better fire protection to an entire community that this particular link. Mr. Mountain: I’m not disputing that I just, the question is, is there another alternative… Mr. Betz: I just don’t know any alternative.. Mr. Mountain: So your feeling is that a combination of cisterns and wider road width would not be an alternative that would address this. Mr. Betz: No, because we don’t have the access, the common everyday access between the two neighborhoods so we have access in from two ways to get up the hill, Saddle Hill, Carriage Hill. There’s so many factors involved here, this is just the key element within the whole project. If we were looking at this today and all the properties along Carriage Hill, Saddle Hill and the neighborhood there were being developed it would be interconnected. There would be no doubt it would be interconnected. So I’m not quite sure why we’re changing that plan that in my mind has been in place for many many years for this community. It is the best way to do it and I think it the only way, quite honestly, it can be done to serve the entire community. Mr. Mountain: One final question. Even in the through street, two-way access scenario, isn’t it possible that you can have obstructions that can cause you problems under certain scenarios? Mr. Betz: Oh, definitely. Murphy’s Law always rides with us. Mr. Mountain: And I only throw that out because I certainly, probably more so than most, appreciate the frustrations we’ve had with fire lanes but I agree with you, Murphy’s Law can occur even the greatest scenarios and I guess I don’t feel as strongly as you that fire lanes have a monopoly being a problem, you can have a problem even when you have a two way street and I guess the question I would ask is if the fire lane were properly maintained and if the fire lane were there, would it provide an option that you could accept as the means of providing a second way of access. Mr. Betz: I just can’t see it as an equal to, quite honestly, there’s too many failures, too many points of failure within that scenario. I’ll give you a perfect example, that is the situation of any of the snowstorms. And if Dave Read were here he could tell you how many times they make a pass up a particular street and the issues of cul-de-sacs and all the other aspects that evolve but that would mean to me that that driver would pass through, every time they did Wright Lane they would pass through that fire lane and I don’t see that happening, quite honestly. And in essence, the level that we need to ensure, because the most critical time might be in the worst weather conditions, to have that access.
Mr. Mountain: If that somehow could be established would that address your concerns. Mr. Betz: It would take a lot of convincing with the history we have so far with fire lanes and talking to other communities as well. After every snowstorm I can take you not only here but to other communities and show you fire lane after fire lane that are blocked by snow. Mr. Tolley: I just want to mention, underscoring the discussion before, contemporary planning, and a project that would be very contemporaneous to your situation over there. As you recall Winston Farm was built a number of years ago. That was originally a cul-de-sac. When the Zimmer property was developed it was required that it connect into the Winston Farm property, again, for circulation. I think that’s a more contemporary example of what has been going on with the planning board. Mayor Krieg: In
either of these cases, Winston Farm or Mr. Tolley: No. Mayor Krieg: Condemnation is a very expensive laborious situation. From what we’re gathering. The landowner that owns that sliver of lane through is not agreeable to allowing this road to go through. So we’re talking probably, we could be talking three to five years away, litigation, in order to extend the road. Does that change your thinking at all because this development won’t be in for three to five years. And before… Mr. Betz: No,
it doesn’t change our objective to have that..we find that this community, for
instance, the point that we’re at today was a temporary cul-de-sac on Mr. Krieg: It does. Mr. Betz: From the perspective of, maybe this land just cannot be built on in the direction that they’re wishing to build it upon. There are go and no go types of situations. If we had a box turtle floating around on this property everything would come to a grinding halt. Mr. Krieg: And if monkeys had wings they wouldn’t be swinging from trees. Mr. Betz: I guess I’m trying to raise the bar when it comes to this because this is a safety issue and so many times I see reconfiguration of subdivisions, reconfiguration of layouts because of an environmental condition and maybe the same has to be true in this particular case. Maybe it comes about that it is not feasible. It was presented to us that is was feasible. It’s unfortunate that all of a sudden now someone has taken up the position that it is not longer feasible. Mayor Krieg: Well, it’s no longer feasible without condemnation proceedings. Has this community ever condemned, I’m asking out of ignorance, any land to extend a road for safety provisions? That you’re aware of in your 20 years? Mr. Betz: No, I’m not aware of that because from the perspective of putting projects together it was always part of the element to develop that property. Winston Farm was a perfect example. Mayor Krieg: This could be much easier in my mind if the property was continued and actually did abut and condemnation wasn’t required. Mr. Betz: And I don’t know this, and I don’t have a map in front of me, but does the end of Carriage Hill have a right of way to go to Saddle Hill. Mr. Mountain: A walking easement. Mr. Giordano: Mr. Betz, I think it’s my turn and let’s talk theoretical for a few minutes. I understand in a perfect world, and I’m just trying to air everything out here, complete the record so none of my questions are intended to go either way here. I understand in a perfect work we would have a through street and probably a fire hydrant in front of each house. Mr. Betz: A perfect world would have every home sprinklered. Mr. Giordano: And every home sprinklered, thank you, understood. Mr. Betz: You know my position…. Mr. Giordano: Stepping back now and assuming that sprinklering is out, unless they build a 13,000 sf.? Mr. Betz: No, it’s out. Mr. Giordano: Out altogether? Ok, sorry. So that’s out and because of no public access the hydrants are out, I’m sorry, no public water, the hydrants are out. As of now, I guess we have one cistern located here? Mr. Betz: Well, we have one cistern that is at the present time was installed for the Wright Lane subdivision which actually is fronting on Saddle Hill at the corner of Wright Lane and we also have a hydrant on Raine Tree and Saddle Hill. Mr. Giordano: Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that there’s now one more with respect to this development. Let’s assume that for the sake of argument that it’s not my perfect world anymore and we’re just dealing totally with cul-de-sacs. Is one cistern enough? Mr. Betz: Depends
on what your objective is for fire fighting in that region.
Our community’s position, it is a 30,000 gallon cistern, basic minimum,
does not address the particular fire risk for that particular neighborhood so in
any neighborhood where we’re putting in a cistern it would be a 30,000 gallon
cistern and there’s reason behind that for the NFPA and the ISO as to volume
capacity and delivering capabilities of it so it’s a base number to work from.
Unfortunately, we’re not, we’re talking realistic in Mendham
Township, the size home that’s going to be placed on these properties or that
exists in this neighborhood in comparison with the rest of NJ are quite large.
And the fire flow requirements get quite high.
When we speak about delivering capabilities we are looking at, even on
initial operations having mutual aid response in order to deliver the capability
if we add that third or forth cistern that’s going to add another 2 or 3
communities to the response in order to gain that water supply.
So, you could, if you wish to calculate out and develop some type of
water supply criteria for the neighborhood, again that’s only addressing the
extension of Mr. Giordano: Understood. And I guess that all I’m asking is if indeed we’re asking you to plan the concept of the perfect cul-de-sac, so to speak, if going through is not an option, and I understand your position, I’m not asking you to back off that position, these are all theoretical. Would a second, third or fourth cistern, and excuse my ignorance, last time I had a fire hat on I was about seven, is a second, third, or fourth or fifth or sixth cistern, is there any point that your maneuverability issues, with respect to getting engines in both directions that you were talking about with a through street, is there any time that that’s mitigated. I realize it would never be perfect. Mr. Betz: No, because what happens is you have to bring more apparatus in when you add additional cisterns. You’re actually clogging it further. One option would be to say well, put a larger tank in and therefore you can decrease the number of units. But we’re not operating in the norm, we’re operating outside of the window. For Mendham Township we’re operating in the norm because unfortunately that’s what our world is, but if we were to add additional cisterns you’re going to have to add additional pieces of apparatus on to Wright Lane so congestion is going to become even more serious an issue. Mr. Giordano: One additional question. Going back, I guess to something Mrs. Link brought up. If this were presented to you and somebody came and said, totally hypothetical again, the owner of this property is willing to give fire department only access through the back of their property, so there’s no…for the sake of argument here, there’s no development going on, but they’re willing to give you fire department access to a new road they’re going to cut in their property, but they’re not gong to make it a through street because they live there and they don’t want the traffic from a through street and they’ve talked to the Lt. and they’re convinced that it’s easier to catch bad guys in a cul-de-sac. Would you, and your option was to take that or nothing….pure hypothetical question in terms of public safety, what do you think? Mr. Betz: Again, for the community’s sake I don’t know where we’re going because the viability that we have seen so far with fire lanes, it just not a viable arrangement. Mr. Giordano: Understood. And that’s … Mr. Betz: We’re dealing with multiple parties in this particular case and now we’re dealing with unknown parties ie the property owner who’s now going to insure maintenance of a fire lane because you said it across private property. Mr. Giordano: In terms of the easement I assumed we the Township would do same stellar job we do with all your other fire lanes, no pun intended. And you may have seen the planning board having had something to do with the school property immediately after that last …..I wrote a memo to Township Committee because we had been somewhat responsible for that one and again, while not perfect, I’m just curious as to realizing some of the things Mayor Krieg brought up are still on the table there, that…I realize your opinion is solid here and I understand that, it’s the through street is what should be there and there really should be no excuse from a public safety standpoint, I understand that, but I guess I’m just asking more from the standpoint of if somebody came up and offered a fire lane access again that the Township would have to maintain, so that’s…yell at Steve for that….vs nothing. Is the board is disinclined to connect the streets I guess I’m trying to figure out is does a fire lane make some sense to you realizing the tons of impracticalities and quite honestly the fact that Mayor Krieg’s problem still with respect to having to purchase the easement…I’m just curious if that’s better than nothing. Mr. Betz: I would have to say yes given all your prior statements. Mr. Giordano: It’s a pure hypothetical. I just needed to understand. And I wasn’t trying to put you on the spot. Mr. Betz: I take this very personally in this community from a fire protection perspective, some of you know that, 33 years in the fire company. I’ve seen the good and the bad. And I think we’ve done a very good job in planning. We have a couple glitches and we have the opportunity to correct those glitches. I strongly feel we should take that perspective. It’s unfortunate that we have a configuration, however it was laid out for unknown reasons in this particular case. I don’t think too many people in the audience have been at a fire ground operation at 2:00 in the morning on a snowy winter night and try to rescue families out of a home. This is extremely serious. And you know we speak about fire lane accessibility. That means we have keys, you have to go through scenarios with that arrangement, that means providing neighboring communities with keys. If we had a situation on Wright Lane and we requested, like we would on any working fire, Peapack-Gladstone to respond, it means that someone would have to go down and open up that gate so that they would have to have a key so there are a number of other elements here as to why a barrier creates problems. Mr. Giordano: I’m sorry this is one last question on my part. Do they have to be locked or if it’s a meandering lane that is some sort of stabilized base but basically looks forested, I’m sorry I guess it’s a dumb question.. Mr. Betz: No, I don’t think it’s a dumb question at all. Maybe the police could answer that one. You know, it’s going to be hard to regulate so to me that would be more of a problem, possibly than a positive. And it still would have to be paved and maintained. You have to realize when you’re running a tanker with 4000 gallons of water it’s heavy. Mr. Giordano: And, Mr. Betz, just let me state, I think on behalf of all the board members, our questions are intended to air out all different possibilities, we in no way intend any disrespect toward you or the job you’re doing with respect to everything. Mr. Betz: I just want to let others know that this is not just a whim. This is more than that. Mr. Giordano: Understood. Any further questions by members of the board? OK. Mr. Traynor, I know you have an expert but Mr. Luther, I know you’re here, I just didn’t want to not acknowledge any…I don’t know if on behalf of Mr. Masefield there’s any issues or questions that you want to raise, sir? Mr. Masefield: I do have one question. In planning, does the water supply that comes from the pond, has that been taken into account in your calculations for fire fighting. I know some years ago some people were playing with hoses and filters and did some testing… Mr. Betz: You’re speaking of the …. Mr. Masefield: the pond on my property. Mr. Betz: It has not been taken into from the perspective that it is not readily accessible for this purpose. Mr. Masefield: But it is a pond. Mr. Betz: Well, yes, but what it would entail is a portable pump in order to do that operation. Mr. Masefield: The only point I’m making is at least acknowledge…. In speaking of Brookrace having an ample supply of water I presumed you meant the pond there. Mr. Betz: Oh no, not at all. Mr. Giordano: Mr. Traynor? Mr. Traynor: Thank
you for taking the time come out here tonight.
The first thing I would start with, you mentioned early in the testimony
that there was a fire on Mr. Betz: The result was a basement. The house burned to the ground. Mr. Traynor: Not to the house. In terms of what actually caused the problem. You said you had to back the truck up. Mr. Betz: You have to back the apparatus in because cul-de-sacs are the setup point for the portable tanks. There is no turning around radius capability. Mr. Traynor: You also mentioned in your earlier testimony that often times when there is a through street, there’s two connectors, you’ll sometimes set up operations on both sides, both sides of the fire. Mr. Betz: Correct. Mr. Traynor: And you also indicated that there are instances sometimes when the fire truck is parked on the side of the street, not far enough away where there is a problem with an ambulance or another truck passing that fire truck, is that correct? Mr. Betz: That can be correct on a narrow road. Mr. Traynor: So wouldn’t the potential then if you’ve got operations set up on both sides even with two accesses there is still the possibility of having a situation where you’re blocked in from both sides. Mr. Betz: That would be unusual circumstance because with the proper set up it would not occur. You have two access points, two exit points. Mr. Traynor: But the same way, you said with the proper set up in the same way if you had a proper set up on a cul-de-sac presumably meaning that the fire truck was properly parked or positioned so that it would allow other cars to get through and that would avoid at least that one potential issue that you mentioned. Mr. Betz: You have to understand when you’re setting up a shuttle operation the square footage that’s required on the ground in order to put down your tank, to your turning radius for your apparatus, there’s a number of configurations and situations going on there so it’s much better to have the capability of passing through from a circulation point with your tanker pumping and continuing on an empty load and circling around coming through again. That also maintains access for your emergency services and first aid. Mr. Traynor: Other than a situation where if the spot where you’re doing your setup is actually in the cul-de-sac, in the bowl itself, as long as that cul-de-sac is sufficient width there should not be an issue in terms of the fire access vehicle being able to go to the end of the cul-de-sac, turn around come back and pass on the other side of the street in the other direction, is that correct? Mr. Betz: That’s incorrect. To do setup in the operation you have fire apparatus in the road, portable tanks, tanker dumping its load, there would not be enough room for the third apparatus to turn around. Mr. Traynor: Could you explain that again, you got how many… Mr. Betz: You end up with three fire vehicles. Mr. Traynor: They have to be side by side? Mr. Betz: They have to be side-by-side, yes, in order to pass. Mr. Traynor: No, no in terms of where they’re parking you’re saying that have to be side by side or could they be parked on the same side of the street one in front of the other allowing that sufficient width on the other side of the street to allow… Mr, Betz: No because what happens is the tanker shuttle is water that’s moving, it’s water that’s being used. You have to keep the water moving, if you block your tankers in, stop your tanker operation while you dump one tanker and hold an empty tanker, for instance, inside the cul-de-sac area you’ve now broken your sequence of operation and very likely to run out of water. It has to be a continuous operation. This is, you know…. Mr. Traynor: I understand the consequence of a continuous operation I guess where I’m not following you is why it’s…. would not be able to keep that one side of the street clear. Mr. Betz: Well, you have a piece of apparatus that is 9 feet in width, a second piece of apparatus that’s 9 feet in width and a third piece of apparatus that’s 9 feet in width, that’s 27 feet. Mr. Traynor: I understand that all three of them couldn’t take up the road at the same time. Mr. Betz: But that’s what is going to happen. That’s the scenario that’s exactly going to happen. Mr. Traynor: How is that going to happen. Why… Mr. Betz: Because I explained to you when you bring in your operation, tankers are coming in full, unloading, turning around.. Mr. Traynor: The one tanker is unloading. Mr. Betz: Right and the tanker that has unloaded prior to that turns around in the cul-de-sac, coming back and it stops because it can’t get by. Mr. Traynor: Why can’t it get by? Mr. Betz: Because of road width. Mr. Traynor: Because of one tanker… Mr, Betz: You’re talking about the perfect world and it is not the perfect world in a tanker shuttle operation. Mr. Traynor: I think what you’re saying is there may be a point where one is coming this way and the other one is coming the other direction and one is sort of parked on the side of the street. I agree that at one point in order to get by one of those tankers is going to momentarily wait… Mr. Betz: For more than momentarily, unfortunately, it’s going to be 3 or 4 minutes. Mr. Traynor: For the one tanker that’s leaving to get a refill just to pass by the stationary tanker, going to take 3 minutes for him to pass by? Mr. Betz: He’s going to have to stop. He’s not going to be able to pass, just done have the width. Be happy to take you out some Sunday and demonstrate it to you. Mr. Traynor: According
to the letter, you mentioned that there were 3 letters written.
I see our record, let’s make sure we’re referring to the same
letters. One letter dated Mr. Betz: Mr. Traynor: Mr. Giordano: I guess it, probably, Mr. Falcon, if we’re going to have Mr. Betz refer to them? Yes, we’re up to I believe B-5 would be the first one and if you would just let me have the date of that one. Mr. Traynor: We’ll
go chronologically? It would be Mr. Giordano: I’m sorry, Mr. Traynor, we’re just trying to see if we already marked one of those in as a petitioner’s exhibit. Mr. Pierson: I thought we had one of these marked, at least, not to delay this so that we’re out of here in one in the morning, it’s so that we don’t confuse these. Mr. Giordano: Understood, Mr. Pierson. Mr. Tolley: Mr. Pierson, who would have put it in evidence? Mr. Pierson: I thought that was done today, I mean be wrong. Mr. Tolley: Today, no the police was done today. Mr. Pierson: Then I stand corrected. Mr. Traynor: The
second one is July 21, 2004 The
third would be Mr. Giordano: B-5, B-6 and B-7. Mr. Traynor: Now,
referring to the letter dated Mr. Betz: Correct. Mr. Traynor: Now, would you consider the existing subdivision fire protection, would that be inadequate? Mr. Betz: Yes, I do. Mr. Traynor: For every cul-de-sac in Mendham fire protection is inadequate for those cul-de-sacs. Mr. Betz: It is not at the level that we would wish it to be. Mr. Traynor: How many cul-de-sacs are there in Mendham? Do you know off the top of your head?
Mr. Pierson: There are 99. Mr. Traynor: 99 cul-de-sacs? Mr. Pierson: There are 150 streets give or take a couple. The clerk and I went through this the other day and Mr. McCabe counted one more that we did. Mr. McCabe: Mine are certified…. Mr. Pierson: So, somewhere within that give or take… Mr. Traynor: Is there any cul-de-sac in Mendham that you would not want to see a connection made, that there would be 2 points of access. Mr. Betz: Without going through each one individually I don’t know. Mr. Traynor: When you mentioned that, earlier in your testimony, you said this is an opportunity to correct a glitch, I think you said, in terms of approving a subdivision that didn’t have this interconnection, so therefore, every cul-de-sac in Mendham you consider essentially a glitch or if you could correct it you’d want that corrected, 2 points of access? Mr. Betz: Yes. Mr. Traynor: And you would feel that the use of eminent domain for solving that problem would be reasonable and would be an appropriate measure to take? Mr. Betz: That is not my call to make. Mr. Traynor: But you would, in this instance, you’re basically saying that the interconnection of the two streets is mandatory, the word you used, meaning that it must be done at all costs. Mr. Betz: In most cases, it’s all in my testimony earlier, there is another option that we can build on. Mr. Traynor: But given the fact assuming there is nothing built that wouldn’t improve the….. Mr. Betz: Would not improve it, but the situation is more aggravating the situation by doing what we’re doing. We’re adding more homes into a situation that is not appropriate. Mr. Traynor: And again, so you would, if you had the means to do it, it would be your opinion that it would be a proper step for the town to take to essentially connect every cul-de-sac using whatever means necessary. Mr. Betz: I
think you’re taking that a bit extreme. I
mean, the city of Mr, Traynor: Now getting back to the letter January 15, you mentioned that there was a fire official participated in a question and answer period with the board members, owners and residents in a public meeting. Which public meeting are you referred to there? Mr. Betz: I cannot recall the date…when it might have been I’m not sure. Mr. Traynor: Were there….you indicated there were residents at that public meeting that commented. Mr. Betz: I believe they commented. I don’t recall give and take but I remember the discussions that we had here before the board. Mr. Traynor: Would you know if any of those residents were residents of the two neighborhoods that are in question tonight, Carriage Hill and Saddle? Mr. Betz: Masefield was there. Mr. Traynor: But none of the other residents, to your knowledge., were at that meeting? Mr. Betz: I didn’t take attendance. Mr. Traynor: Now,
moving on in your letter a little bit, you speak in the second paragraph, you
talk about the lengths of the roads, you say the existing, you’d eliminate the
existing 1250’ Mr. Betz: From Saddle Hill Mr. Traynor: From Saddle Hill to where? Mr. Betz: Saddle
Hill to the end of Mr. Traynor: It is 1250…where did you get the 2950 to the extension? Mr. Betz: The addition of the proposal Mr. Traynor: Is that going all the way to Carriage Hill or was it stopping…. Mr. Betz: I
don’t recall. Which plan was
used…we had plans presented to us and that’s what we were using. Be aware
though, that’s just for that, we did not include the dead end that already
exists from Mr. Traynor: I think we covered this…you may have mentioned this earlier but RSIS does not have, does not limit the length of cul-de-sacs. Mr. Betz: It also does not address fire protection in rural areas. Mr. Traynor: There is no…the length of the road from this sense from a code standpoint, is irrelevant, how long it is. Mr. Betz: Not from a fire protection perspective. Mr. Traynor: From a code standpoint, there is nothing to prevent a cul-de-sac from being 100’or from being 3000’ for all intents and purposes. Mr. Betz: I am not an expert in that area. Mr. Traynor. OK. No, getting into the standard operating procedure for responding to a emergency call for fire, typically how many tankers are sent to a call? Mr. Betz: Initial response is one tanker. A Township tanker. Mr. Traynor: How many tankers does the Township own? Mr. Betz: One tanker. Mr. Traynor: One tanker? And what is the capacity of that tanker? Mr. Betz: That tanker is 4000 gallons. Mr. Traynor: Now
is it ….does the Township ever call a surrounding municipality’s fire
department from say Mr. Betz: We have mutual aid agreements with all the adjoining municipalities. Mr. Traynor: And
what’s the.. I guess what would you say is the maximum number of tankers, in
your experience that you’ve seen respond to a fire in Mr. Betz: Nine Mr. Traynor: And are those tankers generally speaking around 4000 gallons each? Mr. Betz: No, they aren’t. They run anywhere from 2200 to 4000 gallons. Mr. Traynor: When you have 9 tankers responding you have the potential of having up to 27,000 gallons?
Mr. Traynor: How much water is typically contained in a cistern? Mr. Betz: 30,000 gallons. Mr. Traynor: 30,000, is that standard for Mendham or is that industry wide? Mr. Betz: That’s
Mr. Traynor: OK. Now, on Saddle Hill and this is basically this neighborhood that deadends there are how many cisterns currently located? Mr. Betz: Are you speaking of Saddle Hill? Mr. Traynor: Saddle Hill and the cul-de-sacs extending from Saddle Hill. Mr. Betz: There are presently 3. Mr. Traynor: And what is the fire department history of using cisterns? How many times, do you say, that they’ve actually used a cistern in your time with the fire department? Mr. Betz: Structure fires….6 or 7 times. Mr. Traynor: 6 or 7 times over how many years? Mr. Betz: Our first installation was 1984 |
