 |
|
|
|
The meeting of the Mendham Township Planning
Board was called to order at ROLL
CALL: Present: Mr. Giordano, Mr. Tolley, Mayor Porter, Mr. D’Emidio, Mr. Buchanan, Mrs. Kinsel, Mr. Mountain, Mr. Majorossy, Alt. 1; Mr. Timpson, Alt. 2 Also Present: Mr. Falcon, Attorney; Mr. Kimball, Planner; Mr. Aubin, Environmentalist; Mr. Balut, Engineer SALUTE TO THE FLAGADEQUATE
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 MINUTES
– NYDAMMr. Spear, Esq. introduced himself and stated his credentials. He represented Mr. & Mrs. Nydam in their application for preliminary and final subdivision approval. After consulting with his experts following the last meeting, amendments were made to the existing approved plan to satisfy Planning Board concerns and to cause less land disturbance. First, he withdrew the request for a waiver of the water tank on the plan. The preliminary plan was amended to show the tank and if approved, will be added to the final plan. Second, he agreed to follow Mr. Connolly’s suggestion that the location of the proposed driveway be determined by a joint meeting on the property between the Tree Protection Committee, the applicant’s professionals and the Board’s professional staff. Mr. Hansen, Fereirro Engineering, and the Township Consultants were sworn by Mr. Falcon. Mr. Hansen presented his credentials. The Planning Board accepted his qualifications, and there were no objections from the public. Mr. Hansen exhibited a plan dated He described the basic changes as: 1) public road access to the proposed back lot becomes a private driveway with ownership by Lot 7.01, 2) private road requirements are 12 feet wide versus 18 feet for public road, thereby reducing disturbance, 3) map includes a fire storage tank as it did originally, 4) installation of 50 specimen trees, 5) less water runoff and steep slope disturbance. He provided a list of RSIS standards requiring formal waiver by the Board. Mr. Buchanan asked if there was adequate
space around the tank for fire trucks to gain access.
Mr. Hansen responded he believed this was the best cite.
If Mr. Betts, Fire Official,
recommends a change, he will comply. Mr. Buchanan had questions about the location of the septic tank. Mr. Balut pointed out that the Board of Health determines the best location. Mrs. Kinsel referred to the conservation easement at the back of the lot. She questioned how maintenance of the private road was conveyed. Mr. Hansen said it was attached to lot 7.01. Questions were raised about just what issues were permitted for discussion and approval by the Board in light of Judge Stanton’s decision. Mr. Falcon restated the Court’s decision, which allows for the Board to review standard conditions. Mr. Tolley affirmed final detailed comments
from Mr. Betts were necessary even though his memo dated Mr. D’Emidio inquired about the location of the driveway and setback requirements. Mr. Balut provided background on why requirements changed as this application progressed over the years. Mr. Tolley wanted to know if they were setting a precedent by approving the driveway to a back lot. Mr. Falcon pointed out this was a distinct and unique situation due to a Court decision and as such, was unlikely to be used as justification by future applicants. Mr. Majorossy had several questions for Mr. Hansen. He expressed concern about plans to relocate the stone wall and utility provisions. At Mr. Buchanan’s suggestion, Mr. Hansen will stake the right-of-way and driveway location in
preparation for the cite visit. Mr. Mountain requested clarification of the proposed landscaping details. Mr. Hansen answered he believed the appropriate amount of plantings were included in the plans and stressed the decreased tree destruction. He restated intentions to relocate the stone wall. Mr. Giordano solicited consultant reports and comments. Mr. Balut summarized his report dated Mr. Kimball offered his review of the
application in a letter dated Mr. Connolly indicated his letter dated Mr. Giordano opened the meeting to the public. Mrs. Koste, Mr. Falcon interpreted Judge Stanton’s ruling. Mrs. Koste offered information about the existing right-of-way and suggested this be used for the driveway to minimize tree disturbance. She requested that she be included in the scheduled cite visit to determine the exact driveway location. The meeting was closed to the public. Mr. D’Emidio stated the ordinance standard for a driveway should be used as a guide but final approval should be by the Township Engineer. Mr. Giordano summarized.
The application was approved by Court order to have a public street.
The applicant has come to the Board with a proposal to substitute a
private driveway for a public road. The
driveway and drainage would be located to minimize tree disturbance.
A letter from Mr. Betts is required commenting on the tank and its
effectiveness for fire fighting. The stonewall will be relocated.
Mr. Spear will authorize that Mr. Tolley recommended approval be granted subject to the above conditions. Mr. D’Emidio disagreed because the map showed three lots while the Board was approving two lots. Mr. Falcon suggested approval be granted subject to a condition modifying three lots to two lots and correcting references and tables on the map. A motion was made by Mr. Tolley, seconded by Mr. D’Emidio, instructing Mr. Falcon to prepare a resolution for preliminary approval with a private driveway in lieu of a public road and all other conditions as stated. Vote, all aye. If the resolution is approved at the next
meeting on SAJ, ASSOCIATESMr. Mulligan, Esq. represented the
applicant. He summarized the
progress of the application to-date. He
informed the Board that a lawsuit has been filed against SAJ by Mr. Kerzner,
owner of The applicant’s two witnesses and the Township consultants were sworn by Mr. Falcon. Mr. Parker, Parker Engineering, displayed two exhibits and provided a project overview. He indicated the proposed conservation easement requested by the Environmental Commission was included on the plan. He stated a DEP letter of interpretation was pending; soil testing was completed and approved by the Township Board of Health; exemption from the MCPB approval was requested. Mr. Parker referenced three possible schemes with the goal being to select a plan creating the least amount of disturbance for road construction while providing adequate drainage conditions. He would need a variance from building a fully improved road and another for creating a shared driveway. Mr. Giordano asked if the Board had questions for Mr. Parker. Mr. Tolley questioned if the driveway length
complied with fire truck access requirements, and if sufficient water via Mr. Betts’ letter dated Mr. Mountain reported he had a meeting with the Randolph Water Company to seek an alliance between them and the Township to provide public water access. A decision will be made in about eight weeks. Mr. Giordano advised Mr. Mulligan that the
Board favors the use of public water whenever possible and is available, will
require it in this case.
Mr. Mulligan explained there is an easement on the land to obtain this
access and it is the intention of the applicant to do this. Mr. Giordano asked if there were questions for Mr. Parker by the public. Mr. Sauter,
Hersh, Ramsey & Berman, introduced himself as the attorney for the
Kerzners. He confirmed the existence
of a lawsuit filed against SAJ Associates citing the Kerzners “landlocked
land”, He inquired if Mr. Parker had given any consideration for the “landlocked land” when designing the subdivision plans. Mr. Parker said he considered access across the slope, but it was not feasible because of the variances required and potential land disturbances. Questioned by Mr. Sauter, Mr. Parker stated
nothing in his design would preclude the possibility for access off the Mr. Buchanan pointed out that Mr.
Mulligan indicated Mr. Mulligan called Mr. McDuff as an expert witness. He stated his qualifications. Currently, he is employed by Professional Planning & Engineering, Cedar Knolls. There were no objections from the Board or the public. Mr. McDuff indicated he reviewed the
application and the Township ordinance. He distributed copies of Exhibit A3
consisting of three pages of arial and ground photographs that he will use to
illustrate his findings. They
illustrate sloping conditions, the character of He stated the plan was in complete compliance with R3 zoning. They were, however, seeking relief for 1) the extension of the Tanager right-of-way and 2) the shared driveway. As suggested by Township consultants, there needs to be a balance of environmental goals and access and frontage standards. He provided justification for both the C1 and/or C2 variance requirements. In Mr. McDuff’s opinion, this plan is consistent with Township Ordinance and fosters Master Plan goals. Mrs. Kinsel wanted to know if there was any plan that would not require a variance or waiver. The answer was “no”. Mr. D’Emidio asked if the “landlocked” situation was addressed. Mr. Falcon advised the Board that the “landlocked” issue would be settled in court. Mr. Buchanan questioned which was the lesser
of the two variances. Water supply
is the key problem facing this applicant. He
also wanted to know if an analysis of access through Mr. Falcon noted that
“Proof of Service” did not include the request for waivers or variances, and
public notice would have to be repeated.
Witness summaries will have to be provided for residents who would want
to hear testimony. Mr.
Giordano found the application dated May 8, 2002, does not have variance checked
and is in conflict with the variance currently being requested. The
next hearing was scheduled for October 16, 2002.
Mr. Falcon advised Mr. Mulligan to renotice and provide a summary of
variance requests. The expiration
date was calculated to be HEARING PERSONS PRESENTNone. CORRESPONDENCENone. ADJOURNThere being no further business, a motion was made to
adjourn the meeting. The motion was
seconded, all aye, and the meeting
was adjourned at Respectfully submitted, |
|
