|
MINUTES
MENDHAM
TOWNSHIP
PLANNING BOARD
WORKSHOP MEETING
NOVEMBER 1, 2004
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, Mr. D’Emidio, Mrs. Link, Mr.
Majorossy and Mr. Mountain
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
.
Chairman
Giordano stated for the record that Mr. Tim Timpson had resigned from the
Planning Board since the last meeting. He
also noted that Mr. Timpson’s departure has created a vacancy on the Technical
Review Committee (TRC) and asked the members of the Planning Board to advise him
if there was any interest in assuming this position.
MINUTES
August 18, 2004
– vote all
aye, with two minor corrections
October 20, 2004
– vote all
aye, with Mr. Majorossy and Mr. Mountain abstaining
BACKLANDS
LOT
ORDINANCE
Mr.
Balut started the discussion by referring to the discussion paper prepared by
him and Mr. Kimball and distributed to everyone. He started to review the
document and noted that both he and Mr. Kimball believe that the flag lot
provision should apply to the 3, 5 and 10-acre lots and not to the smaller
zones. Mr. Balut said a larger lot
is needed in the rear of the front lots and with the septic requirement, the lot
would have to be a minimum of one acre. Mr.
Kimball stated that it agreed with what the Township is trying to do with its
Master Plan and zoning and noted that the attempt here is to encourage backland
lots as opposed to subdivision lots by making it easier and encourage the type
of development that will promote the overall goal of the Master Plan, which is
an appearance of low density. Mr.
Balut said that the 3, 5 and 10-acre districts make up 80-85 percent of the
Township, and there are not a lot of lots left over to be subdivided.
He recommended excluding the smaller, but if they are to be included, the
lot size should be increased from 1-1/2 times to 2 times the lot size.
Mr. Balut said that the backland section is meant to replicate what is
already in the ordinance, but the difference is in the R-10 where the current
ordinance requires double the acreage, it is their recommendation to keep it as
10 acres.
The
Nydam application was discussed, and Mr. Kimball said there are very few
circumstances where everything is the magic bullet, but it is the balancing of
things that goes a long way in addressing the type of Nydam situation.
He said the only way to avoid the Nydam situation is to permit backland
lots without any increase in lot size and reduce the frontage required.
A
full discussion then ensued among the members of the Planning Board and the
consultants.
Mr.
Tolley raised the exclusion of the staffs in their plans, and Mr. Kimball said
that is something we may want to change. Mr.
Tolley suggested excluding the 3- acre lots and focusing on the 5 and 10-acre
lots to reduce the potential of yield of public streets.
Mr. Majorossy said he liked the idea about the front yard setback being
1-1/2 times and having the other bulk requirements remain the same but suggested
indicating all of the setback requirements in any draft ordinance that is
prepared, and Mr. Balut said they would.
Chairman
Giordano noted that the backland lots have been under discussion since 1998, and
in those six years, the Township has had one catastrophe.
He further noted that the genesis of this discussion came about when the
Township modified the zoning ordinance and came to the conclusion that it is
quite much to require 20 acres in the back lot of a 10-acre zone.
Chairman Giordano said that anything the Planning Board did would be a
recommendation to the Township Committee and asked Mr. Falcon how best to
proceed. Mr. Falcon said the
Planning Board would probably not know any more about backlands lots in the
future than they now know. He said
the policy considerations that Mr. Balut and Mr. Kimball have laid out are on
the money, and as long as the Township grounds what is done in the Master Plan
and meeting the community’s objectives, the courts have said again and again
that they will not second guess ordinances that are grounded in the Master Plan.
Mayor
Pierson said he believed the most effective thing to do is to send a draft
ordinance to the governing body, which, if prepared by Mr. Falcon, would only
require Mr. Clapp’s review and edit. He
further said the governing body would need a presentation by one or two of the
experts and Chairman Giordano or Mr. Tolley.
Mr. D’Emidio stated it would speed up the process and also said the
Planning Board would probably never know more than they know now about this
matter. Mr. Tolley suggested
limiting this to the 10-acre zone only at this time and feels the quantity with
the R3 lots is a problem. He said it
is not meant to penalize people but to force them to use more of the lot, and he
feels the best solution is to do nothing but in the 10-acre zone.
A full discussion ensued, and Mayor Pierson stated he would like to start
off with the 5 and 10-acre lots and possibly come back to the 3-acre lots in a
few years.
Mrs.
Link asked if she understood correctly that the direction being proposed by the
Mayor is to cut the lots to 2 under the backlands subdivision, and the general
feeling that the 3-acre zone should be omitted but include the 5 and 10-acre
zone. Mr. Kimball said those were
the two proposals on the table. Mayor
Pierson asked what is the best thing to do with the flagstaff, and Mr. Kimball
endorsed not penalizing for the flagstaff in the backland lots because he thinks
the very harmful affect of putting in public streets for one or two lots is very
detrimental to the Master Plan goals. Mr.
Kimball said he is not recommending changing the standards the Township now has,
but recommends changing the terminology for a private road to a “common
driveway.”
Mr.
Mountain offered a practical argument, and planning argument, that as time goes
by the ownership of a private road is in the deed, and we have been dealing with
a lot of confusion with private roads that go back a few years.
He said something that is known, as a common driveway is clearer to
homeowners as they don’t really understand private roads, but they all
understand a driveway and what their responsibilities are.
Chairman Giordano restated the current thinking as: R3 is out; R10 is in
and R5 is questionable; reduce 4 new backland lots to 2 new backland lots in the
back; concept of common driveway versus a private road; no one has any problem
with the lot geometry circle and the net building envelope; other bulk
requirement is increasing the front yard setback of the backland lot by 1-1/2
times.
Mr.
Kimball stated that Mr. Falcon would need to talk with Mr. Clapp about “F”
and whether it can be implemented legally. Mayor
Pierson said the requirements for the distance between right of ways in the
current ordinance should be repeated in the draft ordinance, and Mr. Balut said
there were a lot of things in the existing ordinance that they are not proposing
to change.
Chairman
Giordano asked the members of the Planning Board who was in favor of including
the R5 zone in the draft ordinance, and he stated for the record that the
majority was in favor of including it. Chairman
Giordano asked Mr. Falcon and the consultants to let the Board Secretary know
when they are prepared to discuss a draft ordinance and schedule it on an
upcoming Workshop Meeting agenda. He
also extended his thanks and appreciation to Mr. Balut and Mr. Kimball for their
efforts.
BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT ANNUAL REPORT
Chairman
Giordano acknowledged the presence of both Mrs. Zimmerman and Mr. Daley, members
of the Board of Adjustment, and asked Mr. Falcon to start the discussion.
Mr.
Falcon said, in response to the request from the Planning Board at a prior
meeting, he circulated suggested language on October 12 dealing with the
problems faced by the Board of Adjustment with accessory buildings.
The Planning Board concurred with trying to limit the extent to which an
accessory building can be attached to the principal building and still qualify
it as part of the principal building by putting a 25 foot limit on it and a
permanent roof. He further said the
desire to amend the ordinance pertaining to walls and fences can probably be
done better than what he has provided in terms of defining a deer fence.
Mr. Kimball said he could check with other towns regarding their language
on deer fences and also do some research on the Internet.
Mr. Falcon said the additional thing the Board wanted to accomplish is
whether the accessory building is to be in line with the front of the façade of
the existing building. Mr.
D’Emidio said there is an issue where some of the houses do not have the front
facing the front street. He
suggested adding that the accessory building can be no closer to the road than
the main entrance. Mr. Majorossy
asked what an “all weather roof” meant, and Mr. Falcon said he took that
idea directly from the Mayor, who suggested it ought to be a roof that sustains
people from the weather. Mr.
Majorossy suggested reinforcing it even further by saying “permanent, weather
proof wall.” A discussion
continued, and Mr. Falcon said he would detail the concept of built of solid
materials and not canvas, lattice, etc. Mrs.
Zimmerman asked how the word “occupy” is to be defined in the first line,
and Mr. Falcon said he would replace the word with “use.”
Mrs. Link referred to “Walls and Fences” and suggested a better
definition of deer fence is needed, as well as a height limit of 8 feet for deer
fences.
A
lengthy discussion ensued regarding the various types, colors and heights of
fences. Mrs. Zimmerman referred to a
memo from Mr. Russ Heiney, Construction Official, regarding fences and read
aloud – “A building permit is required for fences over 6 feet and
recommended to be erected within one foot of the lot line and not exactly on the
property line and cannot be placed in any right of way or sight of distance.”
Following
the discussion, Chairman Giordano summarized by 1) asking Mr. Falcon to refine
the language regarding accessory structures, and 2) stating that the Planning
Board will not make any recommendations to the Township Committee on the subject
of fences at this time.
COBBLEFIELD
DRIVE
RIGHT OF WAY
VACATION REQUEST
Mayor
Pierson stated that the Township has had a couple of vacation requests recently,
one on
Beverly Drive
, one on Indian
Hollow and a couple on Glen Gary. He
said they were all in common because they had property that either no longer was
going to be built on or a subdivision had been approved.
He said the Fire Official has noted that we should take caution on this
property because we do not know what changes may occur beyond the Phase I
development at Irene’s Spring Tree Farm. Mayor
Pierson said that caution should be exercised, as was done with
Beverly Drive
, until it is
established where the water line is going to go.
Mr. Tolley seconded Mayor Pierson’s comments.
It was agreed to delay this for an undetermined period of time, and
Chairman Giordano confirmed with Mr. Mountain that he would respond directly to
Mr. Pulver and Mr. Herman since the correspondence was initially directed to
him.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman
Giordano referred to the letter from Ed Trawinski, Esq., with respect to the
water issue at Irene’s Spring Tree Farm. Mr.
Falcon said he believes this is something that has to be notified with the modification to the condition, and he said he would report
back to the Planning Board at its November 15 meeting on the best way to
proceed.
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,
Hope Warrington
Planning Board Secretary
| 
