|
MINUTES
MENDHAM
TOWNSHIP
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2004
In the absence of Chairman Giordano, Vice Chairman Tolley
called the meeting of the Mendham Township Planning Board to order at
7:35 p.m.
ROLL
CALL:
Present:
Mr. Tolley, Mayor Pierson, Mr. Majorossy, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain and Mr.
Timpson
Absent: Chairman
Giordano, Mr. D’Emidio
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ADEQUATE NOTICE of
this meeting of the Mendham Township
Planning Board was given as follows: Notice
was sent to the DAILY RECORD and the OBSERVER
TRIBUNE on
January
8, 2004
.
Notice was posted on the Bulletin Board in the Township Hall in
Brookside
,
New Jersey
on
January 8, 2004
, and Notice was filed with the Township Clerk on
January
8, 2004
.
STATEMENT
OF EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE: “In
case of an emergency requiring the evacuation of this room there are two
emergency exit doors along the side that you entered.
In the foyer you may then either exit down the open stairwell to the
exterior or enter the enclosed stairwell and exit to the exterior at the bottom.
Then please move away from the building until instructed that it is safe
to re-enter.”
MINUTES – None
Vice Chairman Tolley changed the order of the agenda and
moved the Masefield application to first on the agenda, followed by the backland
lot ordinance discussion.
MASEFIELD CONCEPT PLAN
Mr. Masefield and Mr. Jim Madsen of Apgar Associates
introduced themselves for the record, and Mr. Masefield said they were present
this evening to reintroduce their concept plan subsequent to the discussion at
the last meeting. Mr. Madsen stated
that the revised plans had been distributed to the Planning Board and noted that
the revised plans include (1) extension of the road through to Carriage Hill
Lane that was previously discussed in September 2003; and, (2) the use of lot
size averaging, and in doing so, another lot was obtained and the lots vary in
sizes from 3 to 8.8 acres. Mr.
Madsen further noted that he had met with Mr. Balut and discussed the
intersection location, which would require the Township to acquire property from
lot 51 only and not lot 83, and would also require a site easement to be
obtained and clearing and regrading of slope to the right of the intersection.
He also said that he and Mr. Masefield had met with Mr. Kimball and
walked the road to determine the alignment, and in doing so, determined that
significant trees along the route would not be disturbed.
Mr. Madsen referred to Mr. Aubin’s report that suggested that the
recent stormwater regulations that were adopted might impact the property and
require a 300-foot buffer from the C-1 stream.
He said they have made attempts to meet with the State to discuss this
project and find out what impact the new regulations will have, as they don’t
want to move forward with this kind of investment only to have the project
rejected by the State.
Vice Chairman Tolley then asked Mr. Balut to comment on
the report from Maser Consulting.
Mr. Balut referred to his report dated February 12,
2004, and updated the Board that the Township had authorized Maser Consulting to
proceed with condemnation of adjacent lot 51 based on the plan from Apgar
Associates, and had started the process but he didn’t want to go forward too
much until the Planning Board had accepted this plan.
Mr. Balut said it is recommended that the existing
Wright Lane
cul de sac be eliminated to create
a straight thoroughfare, and the applicant will have to address the fire
protection issues. There is a fire
tank at the end of
Wright Lane
at the intersection of
Saddle Hill Road
and there will be a tank at the intersection of Carriage Hill and Hunters Glen,
which he doesn’t believe will benefit the applicant but he will still have to
address those issues. Mr. Balut said
he had met with Mr. Madsen at
Carriage Hill Drive
to look at the sight distances and the best location for the intersection and
he indicated that the sight distances should be shown on the plans.
Mr. Balut said this road will have to conform to RSIS standards, which
would be 20 feet wide with no curbs; however, in light of the fact that Wright
Lane, Carriage Hill and Saddle Hill are all 24 feet with curbing, the Board
should know that the RSIS does allow for maintaining the existing cross road
section in the development should it choose to do so. Mr. Balut said he believes
the concept plan is a good layout and does skirt the environmental issues
nicely, and he recommends the applicant proceed.
Vice Chairman Tolley asked Mrs. Kimball to review the
report from Kimball & Kimball.
Mrs. Kimball noted for the record that she did visit the
site today, and she agrees that this particular layout is very satisfactory.
She said the report speaks for itself and asked about the planned
disposition of the existing driveway that is extended from
Wright Lane
, and Mr. Masefield said it would be abandoned.
Mr. Masefield further said he would like to add shrubbery and trees to
take the away the visibility of the existing structures (garages) that have been
there quite a long time and will be retained.
Mr. Falcon said that he is of the view that it is necessary to apply for
variances for the existing structures so that every procedural eventuality is
covered, given the creation of the new road.
Mr. Timpson asked Mr. Masefield if he has any documents
regarding the small garage and when it had been built.
Mr. Masefield said he did not, but he will attempt to see what records
are available, because the information he has is that the structure was built in
the 1940’s but that needs to be confirmed.
Mr. Masefield also said this small garage is used by his wife as an art
studio and does have a bathroom and antique electrical stove.
Mayor Pierson said that should be removed as this process moves forward.
Vice Chairman Tolley asked Mr. Aubin to review the
report from Connolly Environmental.
Mr. Aubin mentioned the new stormwater regulations and
300 foot buffers for Category 1 stream will have an affect on a portion of this
proposal. He specifically referenced
a Category 1 stream coming out of the base of the pond and assumes that any
buffer would be measured 300 feet off from the end of that stream.
He further said that no one really knows how the DEP is going to measure
the 300 feet or where they will measure from, but noted that the other thing
that will apply is the Best Management Practices manual.
Mrs. Link asked about a stream shown on the map that runs above the pond,
and Mr. Aubin stated that the stream actually stops right at the edge of the
water.
Mayor Pierson noted the need for coordination on this
application and a commitment from Mr. Masefield to proceed with this application
before the Township undertakes negotiations to condemn the property.
Mr. Masefield said that he is anxious to proceed with the application and
has met with his experts to ensure they have an acceptable plan.
He said they are attempting to get an appointment with the DEP in
Trenton
to determine how the new regulations will impact his plans and try to get some
assurance that the DEP is not going to say the plans won’t work.
Mr. Aubin stated that he does not believe Mr. Masefield will have a
problem with the bioretention system and the swails that are used extensively
through the subdivision have all met the requirements of the new rules.
Mayor Pierson asked Mr. Masefield to advise the Township when he is ready
to move forward. Mr. Masefield
stated that he would go ahead if he has a plan that is acceptable to the
Planning Board and the experts and the DEP.
Mrs. Link raised the issue of conservation easements and
the Planning Board’s prerogative to request conservation easements on
transition and wetlands areas.
Vice Chairman Tolley asked the Planning Board members if
anyone had any problems with the plan as presented, and confirmed that no one
has a problem in the general sense based on what has been presented.
Mr. Madsen raised the issue of possibly proposing an 18
foot wide road as opposed to 20 or 24 foot roads with no curbing and noted that
it will be a connecting road to really be used for emergency purposes and little
traffic is expected. A full
discussion then ensued regarding the width of the road and curbing for the
purpose of providing some guidance to the applicant for the design stages of the
application. Vice Chairman
Tolley summed up the discussion by noting it’s not a clear picture, there is a
very mixed opinion, but it seems that this Planning Board would like to have
some kind of curbing. He suggested
keeping in mind that it is a fairly quiet road and thru street where you will
have a number of homes and people will be parking on the street.
BACKLAND
LOT
DISCUSSION
Due to inaccuracies in some of the maps and materials
that had been provided to the Planning Board for this discussion, Vice Chairman
Tolley rescheduled this matter for the Planning Board Workshop Meeting on
April 5, 2004
.
Vice Chairman Tolley referred to the upcoming meeting
schedule and noted that the Workshop Meeting of March 1 will be cancelled and
confirmed that the agenda for the
April
5, 2004
, Workshop Meeting will include the Historic Preservation
Ordinance discussion and the backland lot ordinance discussion.
Mrs. Link asked for further discussion and/or clarification
on the new stormwater regulations and their impact, if any, on applications such
as Banko, Irene’s Spring Tree Farm, and the Girl Scouts, and a full discussion
ensued among the Planning Board Members and the experts on this subject.
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
8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Hope Warrington
Planning Board Secretary
| 
