MINUTES OF THE MENDHAM TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 2006

Chairman Giordano called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. and asked for roll call.  Upon roll call: 

ROLL CALL 

PRESENT:                  Mr. Tolley, Mayor Krieg, Mr. Pierson, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain, Mr. D’Emidio, Chairman Giordano

ABSENT:                     Mr. Johnson

Others present:           John Aubin, Environmentalist, Edward J. Buzak, Esq., Duggan Kimball, P.P., Tom Lemanowicz, P.E.

The Chairman led the flag salute and announced that adequate notice of the meeting had been given.

MINUTES

Motion to approve both the Minutes of February 6, 2006, Work Shop, and March 15, 2006, Regular meeting made by Mr. Pierson, seconded by Mrs. Link; all eligible to vote agreed. 

The Minutes of April 3, 2006, were tabled to the next meeting. 

RESOLUTION

PB-04-01; Irene’s Spring Tree Farm; Block 147, Lots 7, 42, 42.01-42.04; Motion to memorialize the resolution made by Mr. D’Emidio, seconded by Mr. Mountain.  Upon roll call vote: 

AYES:              Mayor Krieg, Mr. Pierson, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain, Mr. D’Emidio,

Chairman Giordano

NAYS:              None

ABSENT:         Mr. Johnson                ABSTENTIONS:  None. 

Motion carried. 

APPLICATIONS

PB-05-04; Millward, Andrew and Melissa; Minor Subdivision; Block 124, Lots 6, 7, & 8; Mr. Tolley listened to the recording of April 3, 2006.  The prior Notices were verified and had been posted in accordance with the 200 foot list provided by the Township’s Tax Assessor’s office.  Mr. Buzak said the Board had jurisdiction to continue to hear testimony on the application.  Mr. Sweeney said that the plans, dated April 4, 2006, had been revised and were submitted to Mr. Lemanowicz; they were marked as Ex. A-16. 

Mr. Aubin requested calculations of a soil lost from the site during construction and to have it noted on the plan; recommended to use the DEP’s Nitrate Dilution Model to predict the nitrate ground loading off the development, the impact on ground water (Randolph required 1.01 acres per septic system while Mendham Township 3-5 acres), and wanted to know the water detention basin’s temporary to permanent process.  Mr. Spillane said that his calculations were done in accordance with the state’s standards and said there were no private wells within a quarter of a mile of the property; Chairman Giordano disagreed.  Mr. Spillane agreed to grade the driveway to save the trees and would comply with soil erosion regulations.  Mr. Aubin’s September 2005 report said there were endangered species on the property and requested the percentage lost calculated and requested an aerial.  Mr. Sweeney objected, said it was an obstruction and the DEP had jurisdiction through its LOI, but agreed to provide the calculations. 

Mr. Tolley opposed the easement, which was not a typical way to access property in the Township and favored the fee in title.  Mr. Sweeney suggested to modify the deed to create one lot instead of two and to correct the Tax Assessor’s records.  There was concern regarding the location and erosion of the swale, which would remove water from the road.  Mr. Pierson requested one map to show only the property’s lines and easement locations.  Mr. D’Emidio suggested that the detention basin and its access be located entirely in Randolph .  Mr. Spillane said he might be able to reposition it.  It was discussed to add five to eight fee to the easement to maintain the basin.  Mr. Buzak said a fee title would create a split zone, which would be confusing to figure which zone should apply. 

Motion to open the meeting to the public made by Mr. Tolley, seconded by Mr. D’Emidio, all agreed. 

Bruce Yaeger, 1 Heather Hill Road, Lebanon, a listing agent for Marish’s property wanted to know:  if the Randolph subdivision was dependent upon Mendham Township’s decision, if the development was in line with the Township’s objectives, said his client had built a property that would raise the value while a flag lot would devalue the property and objected to it, and asked if the Township ever considered to purchase to preserve it through the Open Space Acquisition. 

Mario Sudesch, 17 Mt Pleasant Road , said his property would lose value if the driveway was too close to his property, wanted it moved as far away as possible and said nobody wants to live next to a flag lot.  Mr. Sudesch was sworn in for the testimony he had given. 

Mr. Sweeney asked Mr. Sudesch to identify his property on Ex A-1, an aerial view of subject property and surrounding area, and asked if he recognized the driveway on the view.  The Board protested that the testimony did not relate to the application.  Mr. Sweeney said the driveway had been relocated since 1996, the house had been demolished, that concrete block and debris were dumped and buried, and trees were removed on his client’s property.  He said his client’s driveway would be setback 25 foot from the property line along the entire length of the property (which is more than the statute) and there was no stormwater management on the property. 

Motion to close the meeting to the public, by Mr. Pierson, seconded by Mr. Tolley, all agreed. 

Mr. Buzak summarized the conditions of the resolution as follows (which would be formalized and presented to the Board and applicant for review):  To approve a minor subdivision to create a lot and driveway; two primary variances, a planning variance to allow a lot that does not have frontage on an approved road, which was created as a result of Randolph action, and for the additional residential structure on the Mendham Township portion occupied by a tenant, the applicant sought a variance to allow the tenant to stay during a term of occupancy, upon termination the structure become an accessory to the principle structure.  Conditions noted, all schools, garbage services, being provided by the township of Randolph, the basin and the swale to be shifted unto the Randolph Township portion of the property so everything is under one jurisdiction and no closer than five feet to the boundary line.  The road would be owned in fee title so applicant would have rights and privileges.  The three lots in Mendham Township would be merged by deed into one lot and would recommend that the lots in Randolph Township to do the same.  Randolph Township would be directed to issue the building permit.  The plans are to be revised to show:  the detention basin and the swale shifted onto the Randolph lot and the five foot distance between the boundary line property, plans to reflect the percentage of trees to be removed, notation on the plans reflecting utilizing the DEP’s Nitrate Dilution Model demonstrating the nitrate dilution for the site.  Mr. Lemanowicz recommended that his report dated March 29, 2006, be addressed as one of the conditions.  Propose that a condition that the applicant or Township advise the NJDEP of the hearing and what went on. 

Motion to approve and authorize Mr. Buzak to prepare a resolution under the conditions outlined in his terms and conditions as stated by Mr. Buzak, made by Mr. Pierson, seconded by Mr. Mountain.  Upon roll call vote: 

AYES:              Mr. Tolley, Mayor Krieg, Mr. Pierson, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain

NAYS:              Mr. D’Emidio, Chairman Giordano

ABSENT:         Mr. Johnson                ABSTENTIONS:  None. 

Motion carried. 

The application’s deadline was extended through May 31, 2006.  The Board took a ten-minute break. 

PB-05-03; CANNAVO, Michael E./Simava, LLC; Minor Subdivision with Bulk Variance; Block 130, Lot 6; 25 Cold Hill Road; Mr. Tolley recused himself from the application.  Chairman Giordano listened to the recording of the hearing.  Vincent J. Bisogno, attorney, represented the applicant.  Mr. Krueger, environmentalist, had spoken with the DEP and said the lot would be reclassified as “intermediate value.”  He said a portion of the buffer of the averaging plan was being reviewed by the DEP and said it would not require a transition area after approval because it was moved to another area on the property.  Chairman Giordano asked about additional wetland areas disappearing.  Mr. Aubin said certain wetland permits are available for isolated wetlands for intermediate resource value and if the area was determined “intermediate resource value”, the DEP has determined that it was not a “vernal area.”  

The Board questioned areas on the map, Mr. Villa explained:  the proposed circle marked E2, wetlands to be removed; R1, an area of the transition area in the greater wetlands area that will be reduced; C1 and C2, compensation areas for R1 and R2; E1 is a reduction area where the septic will be.  The revised plans consisted of five sheets, dated April 5, 2006, were marked Ex A-3.  Sheet 4 of 10 showed the 25 foot conservation easement maintained off the property lines, the house was moved closer to the turnaround area at the end of the common driveway, size of the pool was reduced and moved closer to the house, the proposed drywell detention system was reconfigured so grading would not occur within the conservation easement, the zoning schedule was revised and information on sheet 3 of 10 was recalculated.  Ex. A-4, Alternate A, an 8 ½ x 11 sketch of Lot 6.01, Net Building envelop area, showed the proposed location of the house, the shaded area depicted DEP approved 150-foot buffer area to be reduced and portion of isolated wetlands and transition area to be filled.  Ex. A-5, Lot 6.01, Alternate E, R1 area, the net building envelope circle within an area outside the transitioning area, proposed by possible allowances of both the Ordinance and the DEP. 

The Board didn’t want to waste time if the DEP would not grant the approval.  Mr. Kimball said the plan would need to come back before the Board if the DEP did not approve the plan as presented.  Mr. Krueger said he had discussed the plans and recent revisions with the DEP, which had not been initially rejected.  Mr. Aubin said there is a 95 percent chance that the plan may go through and that the Ordinance was not clear and that the Board has voted inconsistently in the past. 

Mrs. Link questioned the discrepancy in Mr. Villa’s numbers from his previous testimony. Mr. Villa said his previous testimony was incorrect and a recalculation was done.  It was found that some of the isolated areas were not considered in the net building envelop area, and some of the D2 and D1 areas had not been considered.

Discussion followed regarding Mr. Bisogno’s finding of the word “required” in the Ordinance and its interpretation, what is included, excluded, permitted and where and where not to build in the wetlands.  Mr. Buzak said based upon its objectives, the application was determined complete, but may have to come back if the DEP did not approve all that is considered “required.” 

Mr. Krueger said the DEP had viewed the site and that the application met their criteria. 

Mr. Villa said technical variances were needed, net building envelope circle area, minimum continuous net building envelope area and the minimum net building envelope circle for the remaining lot, which could be granted because of the hardship caused by lot configuration and its constraints.  The driveway would need to be located as proposed.  Chairman Giordano was concerned about the wording of the Notice because of the need for the variances.  Mr. Bisogno stated his notice covered the discovery of variances during testimony. 

The deadline for decision was extended to May 31, 2006.  The application was carried to May 17, 2006, for questions from the Board and to be opened to the public. 

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Motion to open the meeting to the public made by Mayor Krieg, seconded by Mr. Pierson, there being no comment motion made to close the meeting to the public by Mayor Krieg, seconded by Mr. Pierson. 

Motion to adjourn the meeting made by Mayor Krieg, and seconded by at 11:33 p.m. 

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        MaryAnne Gruszecki

                                                                        Board Secretary