MINUTES - MENDHAM TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

WORKSHOP MEETING, MAY 6, 2002

The meeting of the Mendham Township Planning Board was called to order at 7:34 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Present:  Mr. Giordano, Mr. Tolley, Mayor Porter, Mr. D’Emidio, Mr. Mountain,

Mr. Buchanan, Mrs. Kinsel, Mr. Timpson, Alt. 2

Absent:  Mr. Majorossy, Alt. 1

Also Present:  Mr. Falcon, Attorney; Mr. Quinn, Engineer, substituted for Mr. Balut; Mr. Kimball, Planner; 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 4, 2002 .  Notice was posted on the bulletin board in the Township Hall in Brookside , New Jersey on January 4, 2002 , and Notice was filed with the Township Clerk on January 4, 2002 .

MINUTES – April 17, 2002 minutes moved, seconded and carried to approve. 

Mr. Tolley announced that the Board of Adjustment Annual Report would be presented at another meeting.

ALTERNATE DESIGN CONCEPTS

Mr. Kimball began his presentation.  As background for discussing this topic, he indicated the Master Plan Committee believed it to be important.  The goals of the Master Plan that directly relate to this topic are summarized in the document entitled “Master Plan Provisions Encouraging Alternate Designs”, which Mr. Kimball distributed.

He reported the Master Plan strongly promotes preserving the high quality of the environment and the historic, rural character of Mendham Township . Of significance is that property layout and division in the past had no pattern but followed the natural land formation.

Zoning, on the other hand, is the antithesis of the above non-engineered pattern. Strict zoning standards actually create “suburban sprawl”. This is not what the Master Plan promotes and why the committee recommends looking at alternative designs.

Road layout is most significant in affecting the future character of the land.  He referenced the Weinerman, Bill-Pat, and Bocina major subdivisions that required extensive negotiations between the developers and the Planning Board.  Satisfactory solutions resulted but were counter to existing zoning. 

Alternatives to the standard zoning that he will discuss are:

1.      Lot Size Averaging

2.      Cluster Zoning (i.e. Brookrace, Mountain View , Drakewick)

3.      Randell Arendt’s Zoning Principle (Book/tapes in Planning Board Office)

Mr. Giordano inquired about how these would tie into the Master Plan.  He is concerned the Master Plan will require a revision.

Mr. Kimball explained the Master Plan Committee did not take a position on alternate design.  However, there is a place in the Master Plan for including one of the above without revision to the Plan if the Township Committee and Planning Board should decide.

Mr. Tolley confirmed that there was wording to allow incorporating alternate design. 

He stressed the importance of the Township Committee in designating parcels of land for alternate design purposes.  Recent subdivisions should be studied.

Mayor Porter indicated the Open Space Committee is positioned to do this research.

Lot Size Averaging is the simplest concept continued Mr. Kimball.  An ordinance could be structured that specifies gross minimum density.  For example, in 10-acre zoning, every lot would not be required to be 10 acres. Individual lots could vary.  Expanding on this example, he suggested that minimum lots could be no less than 5 acres in 10-acre zoning and therefore, other lots could be 15 acres.

The advantage of Lot Size Averaging is that it allows for more variety in the landscape.  It gets around what subdividing imposes on the landscape because of zoning.  It allows for road placement flexibility.  There is a greater possibility to negotiate for land preservation if the town deems it adds to community character or value.

On the downside, it gives a developer the advantage of getting additional lots he may not have been able to get.  It also might possibly become a political issue with neighbors who want bigger lots.

Mr. Timpson asked how it affects FAR standards.  Mr. Kimball said lot size would still govern house size as established by FAR.

Questions and discussion ensued among the Board members.

Mr. Kimball reported there is a backlash to “suburban sprawl”, and developers are aware of it.  They can make more money with a better product and this could result in the diversity we are seeking.

Mr. D’Emidio commented that getting Board approval would be a long process.

Mr. Kimball believes the Township would be getting everything with this concept -- no additional development than already predicted and the desirable design benefits.

Mr. Mountain firmly believes the Planning Board must have control in offering this alternative to a developer.  Additionally, he believes choosing a property list is essential.

Cluster Zoning is the traditional concept of alternative design continued Mr. Kimball.  He believes the drawbacks out way the potential benefits.  The key difference between this and the prior concept is the requirement for open space.

Cluster Zoning mandates a minimum tract size that is quite large, for example, 50 acres or more.  An ordinance would be structured to permit a maximum overall gross density.  Brookrace is an example.  Individual lots could be quite small.  There would be an open space requirement for as much as 50% of the property to be set aside.

One problem is the difficulty of setting up a homeowners association. Another problem is the open space area is usually the least suitable property.  In his view Mr. Kimball stated cluster zoning has not been a great success in its 25 years of existence.

Randell Arendt’s approach is the last concept Mr. Kimball presented.  Essentially, the community pre-decides the land area to be set aside from development.  It can work in combination with either of the first two concepts.

The drawback in utilizing Arendt’s sophisticated concept is that these preserved areas need to be mapped out and codified in advance.  Community goals would be directly addressed.  However, it would require extensive volunteer work to prepare.

Choosing this concept would mean amending the Conservation Plan, as well as putting ordinances in place.

Mr. Mountain suggested the Open Space Committee do the pre-work by utilizing the existing map and eventually incorporating the GIS mapping capabilities. He will write a memo to the Township Committee recommending they consider studying the map to identify the properties for alternate design.  Significant budget issues could be involved.  Consultants need to present proposals.

Following comments and debate among several Board members, Mr. Tolley suggested the Open Space Committee do a limited test with the approval of the Township Committee.

Mrs. Koste, Chairman of the Open Space Committee, said they were headed in this direction to a limited degree, but she will inform the subcommittee of the Board’s current interest.

Mr. Falcon described a model available to the Township through the Highlands Region capabilities.

Mr. Timpson requested the Historic Preservation Committee be involved in the study.  Mr. Giordano suggested he and Mrs. Koste coordinate their efforts.

The Board approved opening the meeting to the public due to a resident’s special request.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mrs. Koste, 92 Ironia Road , addressed the Board.  She referenced her memo, Mendham Township Planning Board Technical Review Process, expressing her concerns.

Mr. Kimball explained the TRC is not a decision-making body, therefore, did not require minutes or public notice.  Its primary purpose is to determine completeness of the checklist, not to provide advice.

Mrs. Link, referred to her e-mail requesting a complete overhaul of the Land Use Ordinance and why it was necessary.  After some discussion, Mr. Giordano said he would prepare a memo to this effect from the Planning Board.  Mr. Mountain will handle the issue with the Township Committee.

The meeting was closed to the public.

Mr. Falcon reported on the progress of the Nydam application presented at the last TRC meeting on April 30, 2002 .  The two attorneys will discuss how to present the application so the goals of both parties are considered.

Mr. Falcon also reported on the adjournment of the Mountain Union Telecom proceedings due to Judge Stanton’s decision to strike the cellular communications tower ordinance.  He will prepare a resolution for the June 3, 2002 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

CORRESPONDENCE – See Cover Memo

ADJOURNMENT

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 9:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,