MINUTES

MENDHAM TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

WORKSHOP MEETING

AUGUST 4, 2003

Chairman 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, Matt Majorossy, Mrs. Kinsel, Mr. Mountain

and Mr. Timpson

Absent:  Mr. D’Emidio

Also Present:  Mr. Falcon, Attorney; Mr. Kimball, Planner; and Mr. Balut, Engineer

Absent:  Mr. Aubin, Environmentalist

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 .

MINUTES FOR APPROVAL – May 21, 2003 , vote all aye, with Mr. Mountain abstaining.

                                              June 18, 2003 , vote all aye, with Mr. Giordano abstaining.

Chairman Giordano stated for the record that two Board Members had to leave for a fire call and the applicants have graciously agreed to modify the agenda until the Board Members return.  He then asked Mr. Banko and his representatives to proceed with Application 03-04.

BANKO

Application 03-04

Mr. Mike Rodgers of Uffelman Rodgers and Kleinle in Morristown , NJ , introduced himself as counsel, and Mr. David Fantina as engineer, for the applicant, Mr. James Banko.  Mr. Rodgers opened by describing the lot on Old Mill Road as 20.8 acres and stated they would like to subdivide into two lots with a little over ten acres each.  He noted there is a problem with the shape of the lot and it only has 100 feet of frontage.  He said they can easily make two ten -acre lots but will require a private drive, and further said that if the Board can work with them on the narrowness of the road, they can make two beautiful lots.  He pointed to the area where they would like to run the private drive and noted that these plans do not touch any wetlands, no slopes and a beautiful view.  Mr. Rodgers said they will be offering three variations of the plans, pointed to Sketch B as the applicant’s preferred plan, and requested feedback from the Board on the various concepts presented.  He further said that Mr. Banko would like to keep the farmland assessment on the property and has a professional forester who harvests the forest. 

Mr. David Fantina introduced himself as a professional engineer and noted that he has appeared before numerous Boards.  The applicant has presented three concept plans to the Board as  follows:

1. Concept Sketch “A” employs a modified “lot size averaging” concept and was prepared in response to comments made by the Township Planner to Mr. Banko at the TRC Meeting.
2. Concept Sketch “B” represents two standard 10 acre lots (although each lot will require frontage variances due to the fact that the property has limited frontage on a public street).
3. Concept Sketch “C” employs a public road (with a 40 foot wide right of way as allowed by the Residential Site Improvement Standards) to provide access for the rear 10-acre lot.

Concept Sketch B is the applicant’s preferred plan, with two ten-acre lots respecting the zoning and with unusual constraints –- very little frontage on Mill Road and Mr. Banko’s house is existing in the front side of the lot.  This lot is fully developed and they have intention of keeping it exactly the way it is today.  The second lot, the rear lot, is to be accessed via a driveway, and they are unable to provide the necessary frontage for this lot.  There are also steep slopes in the rear of this property and they are able to avoid them completely without disturbing critical environmental areas.  Mr. Fantina said they will request variances for location of lot surface, frontage and the location of the lot geometry circle. 

Mr. Giordano inquired about the narrow strip down the side of lot 2, and Mr. Fantina said that will belong to the rear property, and this strip could be widened or narrowed. 

Mrs. Kinsel asked if there was any way to achieve two lots without variances, and Mr. Rodgers said no.

A full discussion ensued regarding the various concept plans presented, the steep slopes on the property and farmland assessment requirements.

Messrs. Pierson and Tolley rejoined the meeting upon returning from the fire call at 8:00 p.m.

Chairman Giordano asked Messrs. Balut and Kimball for their thoughts and opinions with respect to the concept of a private drive and the frontages.

Mr. Kimball stated that Sketch “A” creates a very oddly shaped lot that doesn’t create a good arrangement for future good stewardship of the land, and he believes that is a problem.  He said that Sketch “B” and “C” are essentially the same except that “C” has the 40 foot right of way, and putting aside the question of the public road which he believes everyone agrees is not the sensible thing to do for the creation of one additional lot and the Master Plan recommends against it, and the advantage of the 40 foot right of way over 25 is that it creates more possibility of weaving a driveway into the back lot, missing large trees and creating a more attractive entrance. 

Mr. Balut said that this application was reviewed at the TRC Meeting and he said that it boils down to the fact that the variance for frontage is the big issue.  He also commented that the road widening of Old Mill Road is not shown on any of the plans, and the right-of-way dedication would be required and the applicant could get 10-20 feet extra and would reduce the amount of non-conformity.  Regarding Mr. Kimball’s comments regarding the wider access, Mr. Balut stated that it allow you a little wider room to squiggle a 12 foot wide driveway, and noted that the standard driveway easement is 20 feet, 25 feet is certainly acceptable and 40 feet is even better.

Further discussion then ensued regarding the variances required, the size of the lots, the lot geometry circle, and the location of the driveway to the adjacent property line.

Chairman Giordano asked for further comments or questions from the Board and the experts, and there were none.  He then asked the Board for their feedback and preference regarding the three concept plans presented.

Mayor Pierson agreed with Mr. Kimball and said that Sketch “B” or “C” would make the most sense for lot lines.  He said he was neutral on a road with a cul-de-sac or driveway and tends to think that there could be fewer trees lost with a driveway.  He further said that these seem to be minor variances and is happy that they can get two lots of ten acres and leaves us with less than 100 feet in the front and a decision on the driveway.

Mr. Majorossy noted his preference is Sketch “B” and would like to see the width of the driveway at 30 feet as Mr. Balut indicated, while maintaining 100 foot road frontage on the one lot and the 30 feet on the second lot and also enable you to meander a driveway safely and leave sufficient room for a turnoff for emergency vehicles. 

Mr. Tolley concurred with Mr. Majorossy and noted his preference as Sketch “B”.

Mrs. Kinsel said that if she had to take one of the three sketches shown, she would choose Sketch “B.”

Mr. Timpson said he agreed with Mr. Majorossy on Sketch “B” but with a wider driveway.

Mr. Mountain also noted his preference as Sketch “B.”

Mr. Rogers asked Chairman Giordano if, as he understands it, the applicant returns to the Board with something along the lines of Sketch ‘B,” they would have something that the majority of the Board would favor.  Chairman Giordano noted that this is accurate in concept form, as long as there is no turnover of the Board and they can save as many trees as possible.

LAWRENCE FARMLAND, LLC

Application 03-02

Mr. Ed Trawinski introduced himself as counsel for the applicant, and also introduced Mr. Sandy Irene in attendance at tonight’s meeting.  Mr. Trawinski said that revisions have been made to the plans since the last meeting, and referred to Mr. Balut’s report, which is mostly engineering detail and virtually all of which they can comply with and present a report.  He said that Mr. Balut had also suggested a meeting with the applicant’s engineer, Mr. Aubin and himself to work out some of the environmental concerns, and Mr. Trawinski believes that this suggestion makes a lot of sense.

Chairman Giordano noted for the record that Mr. Balut’s suggestions are acceptable, and Messrs. Villa and Balut will work the issues out, and Mr. Trawinski said that is correct.

Mr. Balut said that his items are detailed engineering issues, and Mr. Aubin has some more substantial concept issues in his report that need to be discussed when they meet.

Mr. Trawinski noted that he has concerns with the detention basins, which started out all above ground and then Mr. Aubin recommended they be below ground for aesthetics.  The applicant came back with revisions showing three of four of the basins below ground and providing water quality control in addition to meeting the times for holding the storm water.  Mr. Trawinski said that Mr. Aubin has come back and said to take those basins below ground and put above ground basins on top, which he doesn’t believe makes sense and doesn’t seem to be consistent with what the Board and Mr. Kimball wanted and what the applicant proposed.  Mr. Trawinski further said that this seems to be defeating the purpose, and this may be one issue where they come to loggerheads.  He said they will need sentiment from the Board as to whether or not they want the basins stacked this way.

Mr. Villa stated that the other alternative that Mr. Aubin suggested, which they don’t think is practical, is to have numerous bioretention basins along the road, and they consider this to be more disturbance, aesthetically unpleasing and more maintenance, particularly when the underground basins as proposed qualify under the RSIS as water quality basins, there is no need for the above ground fire retention basins.

Further discussion then ensued regarding water purification and enhanced swails, and it was again reiterated that the issues in Messrs. Aubin and Balut’s reports may be worked out at the meeting with Messrs, Villa, Balut and Aubin.

Mr. Trawinski then referred to Mr. Kimball’s report and noted that they are in good shape on everything, except the one item he thought they had provided testimony on previously on page 2, paragraph 3, regarding placement of street trees.  Mr. Trawinski thought they had already agreed to do that in testimony that said they will address it at lot development plan time and the trees will not be regimented or only one species.  

Mr. Villa noted that he had called the landscape architect and asked him if he addressed the comment, and the landscape architect had eliminated the street trees and only showed the trees along the road where they are necessary.

Mr. Kimball said that he had not appreciated what was said about the lot development plan, and if he had absorbed it at the time, he would have stated that this is a public improvement and the street trees should be reflected on the subdivision plans.  Mrs. Kinsel agreed with this.  Mr. Kimball also requested a telephone call from the landscape architect.

Mr. Balut said that his landscape architect reviewed the landscape plan to see if it conforms with the Ordinance, and there is a calculation on sheet 60 where the Ordinance is reviewed and calculates the number of trees and shrubs required for the Ordinance, and it is double the Ordinance requirement.  He also said that the landscape plans do show clumps of trees, which is the way the Ordinance was written, and they did satisfy the ordinance.  Mr. Balut commented that some of the trees do not exactly meet the approved plant list, and if the Board does approve this landscaping, he is concerned that there needs to be a guarantee that these trees will be planted if Mr. Irene sells each lot.

Mr. Trawinski said a provision could be added directing that the purchaser will allow the trees to be installed in accordance with the subdivision plans time of the lot development plan. 

Chairman Giordano stated that the plans will be provided to the Tree Protection Committee for their input and specifically for any advice they can give the applicant regarding the types of trees that are recommended.

Mr. Trawinski said that the only other item that was raised by Mr. Kimball is lot 42.02, which in the revised plan shows the typical house in the lot geometry circle, does not go as far back towards the wetlands, conforms in all respects, and are not seeking any variances or waiver with respect to it.  Mr. Kimball made a recommendation that this house is located further back, and Mr. Trawinski said that he would like this to be a determination of the lot development plan.

Mr. Kimball said that is the only thing that still remains an issue as far as concerns regarding the Township’s planning goals for this area.  There have been major changes made in this design that have enhanced its compatibility and promotion of the Township’s planning goals, and the impact on the Township’s character has been substantially diminished from the original plans.  Mr. Kimball said he is holding out hope that the applicant may see fit to address this one lot which will still have some impact on the Township’s character, and there does seem to be a solution by moving the development of the new house to the other side of the wetland area.

Chairman Giordano asked if this would require waivers, and the Mr. Trawinski said the applicant would need to go to the DEP and get a General Permit 10.  Mr. Trawinski further stated that they are not unwilling to relocate to the other location but are not willing to commit themselves.

Mr. Kimball said that the only other thing that needs to be on the record is the change in lot 42.10, which was done as requested by Mr. Aubin for the purpose of protecting the wetlands.  He had recommended that there not be a change in the wetland line and the applicant has agreed to that but it does require a variance and for the record there should be testimony to that. 

Mr. Villa said that what is being requested is two variances for lot 42.10 as directed by the Board in order to avoid buffer averaging on the stream to the southeast.  He said relief is being requested from the requirements for the building envelope circle and relief from the minimum contiguous net building envelope on that lot.  The total of that building envelope area for lot 42.10 will comply -- it is in two pieces but neither of those pieces has the minimum required by the Township’s code; however, there is adequate room to build a house in either of those areas but the plans reflect the physical house towards the proposed Road B rather than crossing the stream.  Mr. Villa said the benefits outweigh the detriments because why should the buffer average create more building area when there really is no practical need for it and can have more detriment to the environment and that stream than benefits to a homeowner.  He further said that this is a large oversized lot of 12.2 acres and in the position of leaving the wetlands and transition as it exists on the lot is of no hardship to whoever may want to build on that lot.   Mr. Villa stated that to simply buffer average to meet a contiguous net building envelope area requirement on such an oversized lot has no practical reason since the benefits of protecting the wetlands outweigh the detriments.  Mr. Villa said it is his opinion that it is not substantially detrimental to the public good, but in fact would enhance the public good for the reasons he stated and complies with the intents and purposes of the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan.

Chairman Giordano noted for the record that he listened to the recorded proceedings of the June 18, 2003 PB Meeting and had signed the Certificate of Absent Member form.

Mr. Balut raised the issue of the proposed lot size averaging ordinance and depending whatever form of ordinance is proposed, he suggested the possibility that the applicant could eliminate that lot and may combine it with lot 42.03, and then to go to Phase 3 where you have Road C and lot 15 and 16 and have three five- acre lots there and by doing lot averaging you can eliminate that lot and the possibility of ever building there. 

Mr. Tolley noted for the record that he will be making a presentation to the Township Committee at the second meeting August.

Chairman Giordano noted for the record the comments from the Police Department and Environmental Commission.  He further noted for the record that Mr. Betz left the following telephone message today re Spring Tree:  “All buildings were inspected and are in compliance regarding smoke detectors/carbon monoxide detectors.  There will be further info for/from construction official upon his return.” 

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was opened to the public.

Mr. Brian Hayes, Chairman of the Tree Protection Committee, introduced himself and acknowledged having seen earlier copies of the plans and thought most of these roads are in unwooded areas, which now appears to not be the case.  Mr. Hayes said that he had a conversation regarding the 1100+ trees in the current plan, and questioned if that had to do with a caliber of a certain level.  Mr. Villa said they are dogwoods 2” or higher and other trees 4” or higher, and is a very conservative estimate and includes not only the roads but the detention basin areas and the lots, and at this point, it is difficult to estimate how many tress will be moved.  Mr. Villa said, in his opinion, it will be significantly less.

Mr. Hayes asked if the proposed roads are now clearly staked and Mr. Villa indicated that the new alignment is not done yet and they will have to do that. 

Mr. Hayes said he would be pleased to review the recommendations for specific species, and doesn’t believe this should hold up the process. 

Mr. Trawinski said he will have the landscape architect contact Mr. Hayes, as well as Mr. Kimball.

Chairman Giordano asked if there were any other members of the public who would like to question or comment on this application, and there were none.

On motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was closed to the public.

Chairman Giordano noted outstanding issues for the record:  Mr. Hayes will be contacted by the landscape architect, and the Tree Protection Committee will provide advice; the issue on detention basins will be worked out with Messrs. Villa, Aubin and Balut; with respect to lot 42.02 the applicant has made a proffer that they will consider moving it back based upon what happens with respect to having to cross the wetlands, but at this point, will not hold up the plans to do so; two variances listed with respect to lot 42.10; and the location of the fire cistern by the Fire Chief. 

Mr. Majorossy made a motion to authorize Mr. Falcon to draft a resolution affirmatively approving the preliminary major subdivision of lots 7 and 42, Block 147, in the Township of Mendham ; Mayor Pierson seconded the motion.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

Mayor Pierson, Mr. Majorossy, Mr. Tolley, Mr. Giordano, Mr. Mountain and Mr. Timpson – aye.

Mrs. Kinsel – nay.

Chairman Giordano placed this application as the third item on the agenda for the September 3, 2003 , PB Workshop, and the first item on the agenda for the September 17, 2003 , PB Regular Meeting. 

Mr. Trawinski authorized an extension of time to September 30, 2003 .

PROPOSED PROCESS FOR CROSS-ACCEPTANCE

Discussion

Mr. Kimball said that basically all of the municipalities in New Jersey have been notified that the process of cross acceptance is beginning to start up again.  There is a new plan coming out in November, which will be the basis of a new formal cross acceptance process that was enshrined by the legislature.  He further said that no one knows at this point what is going to be in the new plan; there’s a lot of speculation.  One of the main issues in the new plan is how to incorporate what is known as the Big Map developed by the DEP, and the Governor has made it clear it has political backing.   Mr. Kimball said it is important for the Boards, Townships, and Municipalities to not ignore what is going on, and the significance that these plans will have for a municipality like Mendham Township is not to be underestimated.   He further said the town needs to be a part of the process and municipalities have two representatives but the new rules have not yet come out.  He recommended that the governing body appoint the two representatives for this process.

Mayor Pierson noted that the governing body hasn’t appointed anyone because there is no timetable yet, and his assumption is that we will receive something telling us to appoint a committee.   Mayor Pierson thanked Mr. Kimball for updated the Board on this matter.

Mr. Falcon then provided the Board with an update on litigation matters.

ADOURN

There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn the meeting.  The motion was seconded, all aye, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,