|
MINUTES
MENDHAM
TOWNSHIP
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 18, 2003
Vice Chairman Tolley called the meeting of the Mendham
Township Planning Board to order at
7:40
p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mr. Tolley, Mr. D’Emidio, Mayor Pierson, Matt
Majorossy, Mrs. Kinsel, Mr. Mountain
(arrived
7:58 p.m.
) and Mr. Timpson
Absent:
Mr.
Giordano
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
5, 2003
, vote all aye.
VON POELNITZ
Application 02-07
Mr. Barry Osmun introduced himself as counsel for the
applicant and began by addressing the memo from Jeffrey Betz, Fire Official,
dated
June 16, 2003
. Mr. Osmun referred to paragraph 2 and Mr. Betz’ comments regarding the width
of the access roadway. Mayor Pierson noted that he has spoken with Mr. Betz and
his concern is that there is enough room for a fire engine to pump from the tank
and have another fire engine pass it in that location. Mr. Wyssling stated that
he had also spoken with Mr. Betz and said they can accommodate this situation by
moving the turnaround area down and make it a little longer and wider. Mr. Balut
suggested putting the passing lane on the opposite side from the fire tank.
Mr. Tolley then referred to paragraph 1, which addresses the
owners’ responsibility for maintenance and accessibility of the access roadway
under all weather conditions and asked if the applicant was in agreement with
assuming this responsibility. Mr. Von Poelnitz stated that he maintains it
himself all the time, and Mr. Osmun stated that this was acceptable.
Mr. Tolley referred to the last paragraph in Mr. Betz’
letter regarding the future availability of public water and substituting the
water main and fire hydrant for the fire cistern. Mr. Osmun agreed with this,
and Mr. Von Poelnitz noted that this would be the nicest solution.
Mr. Tolley requested comments and questions from the Board.
Mr. Majorossy noted for the record he had missed the last three meeting, has
listened to the recorded proceedings for this application and the Lawrence
Farmland, LLC, application, and has provided the appropriate certification to
the Board Secretary.
Mr. Osmun raised an issue, which he had discussed with Mr.
Falcon regarding performance guarantees. He referred to Section of the MLUL
which states “the Municipality may require performance guarantees” and under
normal circumstances where homes were to be constructed, they would be required
to post performance guarantees. Mr. Osmun said that this is an unusual
circumstance where Mr. Von Poelnitz has indicated it may be 10 years before
anything is done with this property. Mr. Osmun suggested the preparation of
document, which would have to be approved by Mr. Falcon and the Township
Engineer that will be recorded and provides that before any building permit is
issued for a new home on new lot 46.01 or reconstruction of this house, a
performance guarantee would be posted at that time. Mr. Falcon said that this
could be done in the form of a development agreement and has no problem with it
as long as there is a trigger before a building permit is issued. Mr. Balut
noted that ten years from now it is possible that someone might not remember and
there should be some kind of trigger. A full discussion ensued regarding
protecting the Township and the best means for such a trigger, such as plat
notation, recorded development agreement, and a tax lien.
Mr. Mountain arrived at
7:58 p.m.
At the end of the discussion, Mr. Osmun stated that he would
investigate the possibility of a municipal lien and speak with Mr. Clapp to
determine the best solution to this matter.
Mr. Majorossy inquired as to the final determination on the
status of the roadway, and Mr. Kimball said that it is a separate lot that is
going to be co-owned. Mr. Majorossy asked if Mrs. Martin would have access to
her property, lot 47, from this private road, and Mr. Osmun said yes.
Mr. Tolley stated that this matter would be placed first on
the agenda for the
July
16, 2003
, meeting, and Mr. Osmun requested an extension to
July 31, 2003
.
LAWRENCE
FARMLAND, LLC
Irene’s Spring Tree Farm
Application 03-02
Mr. Edward Trawinski introduced himself as attorney for
the applicant and recalled that when this matter was last before the Board on
May 21, 2003
, the applicant had promised to have the experts examine optional road layouts.
Mr. Trawinski presented some renderings that he offered as Exhibit A-11 –
Alternative A; Exhibit A-12 – Alternative B; and, Exhibit A-13 – Alternative
C, and distributed them to the Board. Mr. Trawinski also offered Exhibit A-14 as
a summary of the pertinent points of the testimony and linear footage
comparison.
Mr. Trawinski asked Mr. Craig Villa to present testimony and
noted for the record that Mr. Villa is still under oath.
Mr. Villa provided background in terms of the plans that were
originally submitted and a detailed
explanation of Alternative A. Mrs. Kinsel noted that she is
having difficulty with this because she feels the Board is being asked to
consider about alternative road layouts and what these alternatives do to the
Farm, and in the end, the Farm is going to be eliminated. Mr. Trawinski asked
the Board to recall Mr. Irene’s previous testimony and his difficulties with
keeping the Farm as long as he could versus the non-economic benefits of the
Farm. He said that they have told the Board that once they get down to that
100-acre point, they may come in for a use variance to keep the Farm longer at a
lower point. He also said that it is certain that if they do Alternate A or
Alternate B that once they get past Phase 1, the farm is gone. He further stated
that they have a preference for the road layout, but they would like the Board
to poll itself and advise the applicant of its preference, because they are
willing to do any of the three.
After some questions from the Board and a brief discussion,
Mr. Villa proceeded with Alternative B and described the layout and phasing
schedules involved and noted that Alternative A and B are not that different.
Mr. Kimball said that the important distinction in Alternative B is the
elimination of Road C, which, if actually built, will be a very visible
improvement, which would have a significant impact on the roadscape and is an
important concern to the Township.
Mr. Villa then referred to Exhibit A-13, Alternate Plan C,
and noted that this is somewhat similar to the original that was submitted. He
described Alternate Plan C, and he noted that they feel this plan is not only
approvable with minor variances, but is most sensitive to the environment and
the applicant’s desire to keep the horse farm going as long as possible and
still have contiguous lots that calculate the 100 acres. A lengthy discussion
ensued and there were many questions from the Board. Mr. Trawinski stated that
after this presentation of the three options, they would like the Board’s
collective view and wisdom on the existing plan versus the three alternatives
and reach a point where the Board can provide them with clear direction.
Vice Chairman Tolley asked Messrs. Balut and Kimball for
their feedback on the alternatives presented.
Mr. Balut said that he likes Alternative B best for two
reasons; it eliminates the
Beverly
Road
access and eliminates the Road C
access. He noted that these are two big issues and that Alternative B can be
tweaked to preserve some of the fields and would like the opportunity to sit
down with Mr. Villa to do that.
Mr. Kimball said that he agreed with Mr. Balut, and added
that Alternative B is the option that is closest to the Master Plan goals where
the overwhelming goal is preserving the Township’s character. He further added
that he believes Alternative B provides the best basis for future refinements
utilizing lot size averaging and benefits both the applicant’s goals and the
Township’s goals.
Mr. Tolley then asked the Board for their feedback on the
alternatives presented.
Mayor Pierson noted his preference for Alternatives A and B,
with a preference to Alternative B because it saves another road off of
Hardscrabble. The Mayor referred to the possibility of a future lot size
averaging ordinance and further noted that Alternative B would give the
applicant the opportunity to come back and do something to eliminate Road C.
Mr. Majorossy commended Mr. Villa on the different
alternatives and noted his preference for Alternative B. He said he did not
believe it was in the best interest of the rear eight lots if Beverly Drive was
extended to accommodate them, and it was his personal opinion that it will be a
much more attractive setting for the size and quality of homes to have it
centered from the original driveway coming off of public Road A.
Mr. D’Emidio said that he likes Alternative B and was ready
to jump on it from the start; he does not like accessing
Mendham
Township
lots
through another town. He further noted that a modification of Alternative B is
the best that can be done, and he is willing to give variances and waivers to
make it better and work with the applicant. He also believes that one entrance
is the way to go and would allow the applicant to control the look of the
development, and if that would negatively impact Mr. Irene’s desire to
maintain the farm, he is more than willing to work with him to achieve that.
Mr. Mountain said that he likes Alternative B for all of the
reasons stated and has merit from a straight planning standpoint.
Mr. Timpson agreed with Mr. D’Emidio and noted his
preference for Alternative B.
Mrs. Kinsel stated her preference for Alternative B for all
of the reasons stated.
Vice Chairman Tolley noted that a draft lot size averaging
ordinance would be submitted to the Planning Board shortly, but from a planning
standpoint, he agreed with everyone and indicated his preference for Alternative
B.
Mr. Trawinski acknowledged the Board’s preference for
Alternative B, and there was discussion concerning the timing of the revised
plans and the next meeting date.
Mr. Kimball raised the point that Alternative B is better in
terms of tweaking it for lot size averaging with the assumption that the horse
farm is gone. However, he noted that it is possible through lot size averaging
to save the farm as a permanent proposition. Mr. Kimball asked Mr. Irene if this
is something he would contemplate, because if so, then the original layout,
Alternative A, is probably the best option to accommodate that goal.
Mr. Tolley reiterated that the Township is moving forward in
implementing something that would effectuate a lot a more creativity on the
applicant’s part. Mr. Trawinski said that part of the meter they are concerned
about is not the potential for creativity, as long as it is voluntary; this is
something they are willing to consider and look at. He said that the meter they
are going against is what is going on in
Trenton
and
having an approval before a possible moratorium is enacted statewide or a
drastic change is made to some environmental regulation.
Mr. Irene said that he is concerned about not getting
consensus, and he is trying to be honest and forthright and really does not have
answers to some of the questions. He said he will look at lot size averaging
voluntarily and if it makes sense, he will do it. He expressed concern that we
keep going down different roads and there have been a lot of alternates they
have tried to consider, but he still wants to go down a simultaneous path.
Mr. Tolley said he was concerned about giving the experts
enough time to review the revised plans and placed this matter on the agenda for
the
August 4, 2003
,
Workshop.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was opened to
the public.
Mr. Jim Sheehan of
74
Beverly Drive
thanked the Board for the
opportunity to speak and asked if it was possible for the public to get a closer
view of Alternative Plan B.
Vice Chairman Tolley called for a five-minute break to enable
the public to view the various alternatives.
The meeting reconvened at
9:28 p.m.
Mr. Sheehan inquired as to exactly what the Board would be
considering on August 4, reports from the experts and the availability of
revised plans and documents for viewing by the public. Mr. Trawinski offered to
personally provide Mr. Sheehan and another resident, Mr. William Maione with a
set of the revised plans when they become available.
Vice Chairman Tolley asked if there were any other members of
the public who would like to speak, and there were none.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was closed to
the public.
Mr. Trawinski confirmed the matter
for the August 4 Workshop meeting and that no further notice was required and
requested an extension of time to
August 31, 2003
.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Falcon provided an update on a letter
from Mr. Van Renssalaer regarding Tufts.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was opened to
the public.
Vice Chairman Tolley asked if there were any members of the
public who would like to speak, and there were none.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was closed to
the public.
Mr. Falcon also provided an update on various 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
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Hope Warrington, Secretary
| 
