MINUTES - MENDHAM TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

September 4, 2002

The meeting of the Mendham Township Planning Board was called to order at 7:30 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. Balut, Engineer; Mr. Kimball, Planner

Absent:  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 – August 21, 2002 , minutes moved, seconded and carried to approve.  Mayor Porter, Mr. D’Emidio and Mr. Mountain abstained.

VON POELNITZ

Mr. Wyssling, professional engineer from Ferriero Engineering, and Mr. Von Poelnitz presented the application for completeness.

Mr. Balut reported the results of the Technical Review Committee Meeting on August 27, 2002 .  He explained that the applicant had appeared at two TRC Meetings in an attempt to satisfy the checklist requirements.  The outcome of the last meeting concluded with the applicant satisfying most items.  The application could not be deemed complete because four waivers were being requested.  They are: (1) Environmental Impact Statement and natural resources map, (2) Landscape requirements, (3) Private road improvements on the plan, and (4) Fire/water requirements.

Mr. Kimball and Mr. Balut recommended compliance with the private road waiver.  Mr. Aubin had no objection to the EIS waiver.

In review, Mr. Balut stated that this was a major subdivision application with a backlands lot resulting in two lots of 3 acres and 6 acres.  There are three residents on the private road.  There will be no new land disturbance.

Mr. Kimball continued TRC findings by explaining the waivers were not a TRC level decision.  At the core of the future hearing is making a decision to allow the continuation of an informal private road on the map rather than showing a public road as required in a major subdivision.  If it is determined by the Board that a public road is necessary, the applicant will then have to prepare the appropriate map details.

Mr. Buchanan stated TRC members did not have access to Mr. Betts most recent letter and therefore, did not object to a waiver of Item #61.

Mr. Betts was called to summarize and explain the basis for his letter submitted on September 4, 2002 .  He revealed in a discussion with Mr. Kenneth Taylor, New Jersey-American Water-Company, they agreed there were serious issues regarding the methodology of the test for this dead-end area.  The test is scheduled to be re-conducted with several different valving configurations during the week of September 2nd. 

Mr. Betts recommended denying the waiver of the required fire protection water supply or the proposed private road access.  He did not consider the application complete or in compliance with Item #61.

Mr. Wyssling responded that a fire hydrant exists on Mountainside Avenue .   Its adequacy for supply water had not been determined.  He further stated that a waiver from the requirement was not the goal, pointing out the presence of a fire tank on the plan.  Once it is determined at a public hearing and Board direction is supplied, he will comply.

Mr. Giordano summarized and declared the fire requirement was not met and incorrectly checked as “complies”.  As a result the matter should not be before the Board. 

Other Board members commented about the role of the TRC in determining completeness and checklist item interpretation.

Mrs. Kinsel stated for the record that although Mr. Aubin did recommend waiving the EIS, he did have several suggestions in his report dated July 3, 2002 .

Mr. Von Poelnitz apologized for taking the Boards’ time in view of what has been revealed but asked if the Board would vote on the other three items for waiver.

Mr. D’Emedio suggested the Board discuss the other three waiver requests, determine their eligibility, while denying waiver of the fire item until more information is obtained.

Everyone agreed and ultimately a motion was made by Mrs. Kinsel, seconded by Mr. Buchanan, vote all aye, to accept waivers for the first three items and deny the fourth, Checklist Item #61.

Mr. Giordano changed the order of business to hear persons present.

The Board voted to open the meeting to the public.

Mr. Betts, Mendham Township Fire Official, expressed his concern about how Checklist Item #61 was deemed compliant in three recent applications, to which he had responded in writing as being incompliant.  He believes the applicants should be held responsible for presenting evidence of fire protection and water availability, and then he would not have to do in-depth investigating and reporting.

Extensive debate ensued between Board members and Consultants about interpreting the accuracy of checklist items as indicated by the applicant; ascertaining completeness at TRC; and reasons for appearing before the full Board for completeness determination.

Mr. Mountain perceived the checklist was being used correctly by the TRC Committee but suggested Mr. Betts’ written reports and especially Item #61 be given more careful evaluation in the future.

The meeting was closed to the public.

ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

Discussion – Mr. Kimball and Mr. Falcon, Leaders

Following Review of Board of Adjustment Annual Report for 2002,

 and Mr. Majorossy’s Memo

Utilizing materials they provided to the Board, Mr. Kimball and Mr. Falcon lead discussions on each of the following items:

HOME OCCUPATION AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE USE

ACCESSORY BUILDINGS

COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

STRUCTURE/FENCE

A straw vote was taken on each topic, which resulted in the attached report to the Board of Adjustment.

CORRESPONDENCE

Morris County League of Municipalities Seminar – September 30, 2002 , was announced by Mr. Giordano.

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 9:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,