MINUTES OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MENDHAM PLANNING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 20, 2007

Chairman Giordano called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and asked for roll call.  Upon roll call: 

ROLL CALL 

PRESENT:                  Mr. Krieg, Mr. Pierson, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain, Mr. Johnson, Chairman Giordano, Mayor Florek

ABSENT:                     Vice Chairman Tolley, Mr. D’Emidio

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

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

MINUTES

Motion to accept the minutes of the May 16, 2007 Regular Meeting was made by Mrs. Link, seconded by Mr. Krieg, and all eligible to vote agreed.  Abstention:  Chairman Giordano

Motion carried. 

RESOLUTIONS

PB-07-06; Memorializing the Granting of an Extension to Simava, LLC To Perfect

                   The Minor Subdivision (Block 130, Lot 6)     

Motion to approve the resolution was made by Mr. Krieg, seconded by Mrs. Link.

AYES:              Mayor Florek, Mr. Krieg, Mr. Pierson, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain, Mr. Johnson

NAYES:           None

Motion carried.

PB-07-07; Memorializing the Granting of an Extension of Protection for Final

                  Subdivision Approval of Lawrence Farmland, L.L.C, Phases I, II, III

                   (Block 147, Lots 7 and 42)

Motion to approve the resolution was made by Mayor Florek, seconded by Mr. Pierson.

AYES:              Mayor Florek, Mr. Krieg, Mr. Pierson, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain, Mr. Johnson

NAYES:           None

Motion carried.

PB-07-08; Directing the Issuance of a Remedial Lot Development Permit Pursuant to

                  Section 24-9 of the Land Use Ordinance of the Township of Mendham

                  (Block 108, Lot 26, B&B Land)

Mr. Philip Guidone, the attorney representing the applicant B&B Land, had a few comments and concerns as to the revised resolution. He stated that he believes that Mr. Lemanowicz is essentially satisfied with the concept shown in the revised plans that Mr. Beck, one of the principals of B&B Land, provided Mr. Lemanowicz, which indicates the manner in which Mr. Beck hopes to address the wall and what would be done there.  It was Mr. Beck’s suggestion that the footings remain where he indicated that the wall would be open.  Further, where the wall remains open, there would be additional drainage so that the water would not feed down into the opening in the wall.  The idea is to not close in the wall in the space where the steps are, which is reflected on the recent plans that were distributed.  Rather then closing the wall, there would be an opening in the wall with some landscaping and would involve substantially less of a disturbance to the area while leaving the footings (which are underground) essentially undisturbed in this area.  Mr. Lemanowicz would review this and be the one to approve what was suggested.

Chairman Giordano addressed Mr. Lemanowicz asking for confirmation that there are basically two issues on the table; one with respect to potential drainage of the water through an opening in the wall and the second is the footings.  Mr. Lemanowicz indicated that in his opinion and from the plans that he saw, the footings are far enough underground that any plantings would not be disturbed or growth inhibited, although he never discussed the footings with Mr. Beck or Mr. Guidone (this issue went to Mr. Buzak).  He understands the practical difficulties in bringing the brick enclosed again to make it match, and why the alternative is being sought.  He believes it is workable. 

Mr. Beck indicated that the plan was not meant to be a construction drawing or plan being sought for approval at the meeting and understands that it does not include the drainage and potential underground seepage pit that were requested earlier.  He requested the Board consider his suggestion, in concept only, and if amenable, he would work out the details with the professionals. He did not want the resolution to read that the brick must be put back and then be locked into that as opposed to this alternative that if the drainage could be handled properly, there would be less of a disturbance.

Chairman Giordano questioned if reducing the footings to below grade but not remove them all together, as the applicant was suggesting, was satisfactory as long as there is no detriment to the root system.  Mr. Buzak indicated that both these are construction type items and should be tied to the remediation plan that will be submitted to the engineer and environmental consultant for approval.  These items should be reflected on the plan and once approved by the engineer and environmental consultant would become part of the applicant’s obligation.  This is more of a consensus as to the Board’s acceptance of the concept, subject to what Mr. Lemanowicz says, and will give sufficient direction to Mr. Lemanowicz that allows the remediation plan to be developed. 

Mr. Beck referred to the resolution on page 11, paragraph A that “the applicant shall remove the steps, supporting structure” which he interpreted as footings included.  Mr. Buzak will change the paragraph A to include “excluding footings eighteen inches or more below the finished grade” on the blacklined version of the resolution.

Chairman Giordano indicated that Mr. Lemanowicz will ultimately need calculations for the drainage and asked for the Board’s comments and position on the opening in the wall and drainage through that area assuming Mr. Lemanowicz is satisfied as to actual drainage calculations.  The consensus was that once some final plans are received, which indicates a drain, the issue would be alleviated. 

On page12E, Mr. Guidone had two further questions - whether the performance bond would relate to the plantings and whether it would extend to anything else. He thought the plantings and ground cover would be subject to the performance bond and that customarily, it is two years rather than the three years.  Mr. Aubin indicated that typically when there is a remediation required on litigation, it is typically monitored for a period of three years to assure an 85% survival of all plants. 

Chairman Giordano reminded Mr. Beck that he owed on his second quarter taxes.

Motion was made to approve the resolution with the changes by Mayor Florek, seconded by Mr. Pierson.

AYES:              Mayor Florek, Mr. Krieg, Mr. Pierson, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain, Mr. Johnson,

NAYES:           None

ABSTENTIONS:  Chairman Giordano

Motion carried.

APPLICATION:

PB-07-002; Waiver from Lot Development Permit Requirement Block 141, Lot 54 (23 Tingley Road/Bruce and Lori Flitcroft).

Chairman Giordano stated that Mr. Douglas Henshaw, attorney for Bruce and Lori Flitcroft, requested in a letter sent to the Board (which also serves to grant the Board an extension of time until August 1, 2007) to carry this motion to the July 18, 2007 Planning Board Meeting.  Mr. Buzak will send Mr. Henshaw a letter indicating the Planning Board’s acquiesces but with a notation that no further extensions will be tolerated.   

Mr. Buzak indicated to the public that this application would not be heard at the present meeting and would be placed on the agenda for the July 18, 2007 meeting and that no further notice to the public will be provided.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

Schiff Natural Lands Trust Inc.:

Mr. Mountain indicated that Schiff has done their due diligence on all the action items.  However, the one item they cannot control is the Mendham Township Committee’s action on Title 39 request.  They have made that request, and it will be discussed at the Township Committee’s next meeting.  Schiff has done everything they’ve been asked to do as far as procedures are concerned.

Mr. Buzak agreed with this and that the Board grants an extension upon two things – the satisfaction of Title 39 and that if the items required by the prior resolution are not completed by September 12, 2007, the Board can discuss what course of action to pursue.  This would give Schiff a sufficient amount of time.  The record was also to reflect that Mr. Buzak emailed Mr. Julian, President of the Brookrace Homeowner’s Association, a copy of the last letter that was sent by the Schiff attorney giving the updated status.

Mr. Lemanowicz indicated that we would eventually acquire a sketch of some kind as to where the signs will be placed so there will be a record of that.

WOODLAND LAKE

Mr. Pierson began the discussion of the draft ordinance and stated that he is sitting in for Mr. Tolley, Chairman of the Master Plan Committee, who could not be in attendance at the Planning Board meeting.  The draft ordinance describes Woodland Lake as a residential cluster zone, which is a cooperative with 37 single-family homes and other buildings on one single lot, approximately 28 acres, Block 127, Lot 69.  The Master Plan Committee has been working on this for several years and is making this presentation to the Planning Board.

Mr. Kimball discussed that the ordinance was designed to implement the map.  The Master Plan Committee recommended that zoning be amended for that neighborhood.  The ordinance is designed to reflect its uniqueness, and as the Master Plan recommends, to perpetuate its unique character.  One of the unique characteristics that it is trying to perpetuate is a large open space which is around the pond surrounded by undeveloped area.  It also puts a limit on house size in terms of height since the houses in Woodland Lake are generally smaller than other houses in Mendham Township . This ordinance is trying to reflect that.

The first section (under the newly created Section) is a Findings and Purposes section (21-4A1) where the Master Plan Committee tried to formulate some kind of standards that would reflect the familiar traditional bulk standards.  Since this is one lot, cooperatively owned with no lot lines to judge set backs, this became very difficult to do.  The Master Plan Committee was eventually able to develop standards using the map.  The most difficult issue was distances between homes.  It was also recognized that there needed to be standards to ensure that the houses didn’t encroach on each other. The Master Plan Committee empowered the Board of Directors of Woodland Lake to make judgments on issues that arise since they know the circumstances of the neighborhood better and could make the balancing judgments better than the Township could.  Mr. Buzak recommended that because of this unique circumstance, that a Findings and Purposes section reflect these unique circumstances, making it clear and understandable to future building inspectors and Zoning Board that might get the applications etc.  Also, that in the last finding, H, a statement indicates that nothing in these standards would preclude the Woodland Lake Board of Directors from imposing a more rigorous standard.

Mr. Kimball went on to explain that the three-bedroom limitation is reflecting circumstances that are there now.  Woodland Lake has a special permit from DEP for their septic arrangements, and essentially, the three-bedroom limit reflects what the DEP has already imposed on them, and they are willing to accept that.

The next section is the Filed Map (21-4A2).  This map was a created by a New York corporate attorney who modeled it on New York corporate law. 

Mr. Pierson added that New Jersey had either no other or one or two cooperatives like this.  He said that this is a critically important map for the whole thought of this ordinance because it portrays spacing sizes, and the indiscriminate way they are put on the property.

Some of the critical things this map does is that normally there is a front yard setback, but since there are no property lines, an accurate survey done in 2005 for the Woodland Lake showing the location of the dwellings relative to what is referred to in the ordinance as “internal drives”, and how they are determining the front set back, is as is shown on the map.  This map has to be filed with the County and then becomes the official map of which these standards will be measured.  Another very important aspect of this map is that in the intention of the Master Plan, this open space area would remain in perpetuity where the common open space line is the line in which other setbacks are judged in terms of encroachment. 

Mr. Kimball continued to briefly describe the Section 21-4A5 which limits the number to the existing number of homes that are there now.  Woodland Lake requested the ability to be able to approve an addition, at some point, on one or two dwellings; however, it was felt by the Master Plan Committee, when asked that this be reflected in the Ordinance, that they present this to the Mendham Township Planning Board and Mendham Township Committee at that time.  This is not reflected in this section.  The permitted uses are the same permitted uses in other single-family residential districts in the Township.

Mr. Johnson inquired if there were any professional practices in Woodland Lakes , and Mr. Kimball and Mr. Pierson said there were not.

Mr. Krieg inquired whether the map would need to be updated if a resident in Woodland Lake wants to remodel or add an addition.  Mr. Kimball said that the map does not need to be updated.  A discussion ensued.  Mr. Kimball indicated that when an application comes in, there would be additional plan dimensions on file but would not be reflected on this map.  Mr. Krieg suggested that possibly we could require the Association to update the map on a semi regular basis to reflect any building permits issued.

Mr. Kimball indicated that normally for a single-family development this would be exempt, but this is technically a multifamily development, so a site plan update would not be inappropriate.  It is part of a modification of a multifamily development.

Mr. Buzak suggested that we not keep modifying the map on the County level because that is the baseline map; however, instead require that as Woodland Lake seeks approvals to this Board, an updated map be provided to the Board so that would reflect the filed map as modified and what transpired since the original map was filed with the County.  The Board should have existing circumstances in any given application.

Mr. Kimball replied that one of the goals of what was trying to be accomplished is to treat this neighborhood the same way other single family homeowners are treated throughout the township, which is to say that if they conform to the ordinance, they do not need to go before the zoning board unless there is a variance.  They only need to go to the building inspector as standard procedure.

Mr. Pierson suggested that whenever a homeowner wants to add to his house they need to get appropriate plans, and the coop will require them to see the coop first.  Once that is done, it would then come to the building inspector. He suggested that the coop, on an annual basis,

be required to send us a change to this site plan and make it their responsibility.  Mr. Pierson asked Mr. Kimball to draft into the Ordinance that the coop Board will see the plan for any changes and that they will be responsible on an annual basis to send site plans.

A discussion pursued as to how this would be done – whether the association would be remitting payment to the township engineer to update the map.

Mr. Lemanowicz suggested it would easier if a charge was associated with a building permit, and then, when the architectural plans arrived, they be shipped to his office in order to update the map.  The Woodlake organization may be favorable to this condition if it is done with the building permit since it is the resident who pays for the map and not the community.

Mr. Pierson recommended that this draft ordinance go to the Township Committee with the change indicating that housing modifications go through the building permit. 

Mr. Krieg stated that this is very unique situation, and the Township needs updated records.

Mr. Kimball continued to review Section 3,

21-4A5 – Permitted accessory uses and buildings

21-4A6 - Minimum Lot Size – can’t subdivide off any properties for any other purpose.

21-4A7 – Building Setbacks – tried to reflect the same kinds of all bulk standards that we find in other single family homes, but the setbacks are based on the map and reflect this map.

21-4A8 – Internal drives - it was the intention of the Master Plan Committee that these internal drives be maintained as shown on the map.  In that regard, representatives from Woodland Lake asked that they be allowed to make one change – that Barbarita Hill is allowed to be relocated in a westerly direction to give the one building a little more room.  The Master Plan Committee agreed to this.  Other than this, the roads must remain as they are. 

21-4A9 - maximum size of the dwellings would be 2800 square feet which is larger than what is there now but is small relative to most homes in the Township.  This will give the opportunity to expand but still retains a relatively small home. 

21-4A10 – maximum height of buildings shall be 30 feet.

21-4A11 – requires that before a building permit can be obtained, the building inspectors will require having an endorsement from the Board of Directors of Woodland Lake endorsing the proposed addition.

Mr. Pierson stated that is the draft ordinance submitted to Planning Board for their actions and recommends that the Planning Board present it to the Township Committee for their action.  Mr. Giordano drafted a memo to the Township Committee stating the Planning Board duly considers the appended draft ordinance and recommends that the Township Committee consider and introduce the ordinance accordingly.

Mr. Giordano asked for a motion to approve the exceptionally well thought out recommendation by the Master Plan Committee.

Motion was made by Mrs. Link, seconded by Mr. Mountain to approve the recommendation by the Master Plan Committee with the change.

AYES:              Mayor Florek, Mr. Krieg, Mr. Pierson, Mrs. Link, Mr. Mountain, Mr. Johnson,

                        Chairman Giordano

NAYES:           None

ABSTENTIONS:  None

LDP Ordinance by Tom Lemanowicz:

Mr. Lemanowicz distributed at the last meeting a revised version of what he prepared earlier, which had a paragraph in bold that was added to better define the as built map.  This will be revised once more due to an additional issue that has arisen. Mr. Lemanowicz indicated that this paragraph will be revised to read that one of the criteria for the as built map is that the surveyor certify, as part of the final approval for an LDP, the ridge elevation because as much as this is checked in the approval stage, it is never checked after construction.

Much discussion ensued regarding the Land Disturbance Permit.  The revised ordinance allows for two levels of permits – a major and a minor permit – attempting to reduce the impact on the resident if it is only a minor disturbance.  Currently, the escrow for LDP’s is $3,000.00 because currently it is dealing with homes, and by the time the drainage reviews are complete and construction well underway, quite a bit of time has passed.  These two levels of permits would balance this.  These major and minor permits deal mainly with grading review which these revisions are addressing.

Tom Lemanowicz continued in his discussion to review the revisions: exemptions, definitions etc.  Mayor Florek raised the question to the Board that there is so much in the revised Ordinance to absorb along with the impact that the Ordinance has on the residences in this town, that perhaps forming a subcommittee to really focus on its objective would be beneficial.  She indicated that this is an excellent first start and that it is broad so it is probably touching on many issues in the town, but there may be a way to consolidate this into something that would be more manageable and implementable.

Mr. Lemanowicz indicated that basically Mendham Township is in a tear down phase.  People are getting very creative and very literal in the reading of the Ordinance and the contradictions are becoming more difficult to handle on occasion.  This is why the Ordinance is as large as it is. This is a culmination of many creative ideas and very honest questions.  Although it is long, the issues need to be addressed so that answers are not stretched for interpretation.

Mr. Krieg stated that he thought that everyone agreed that the concept and purpose of this is honorable and needed.  There, however, needs to be a trigger point and how that trigger point is defined.

A discussion ensued amongst the Board members as to who would be appropriate for the subcommittee.

Mr. Mountain indicated that he will work with Mr. Lemanowicz to form this subcommittee.

Chairman Giordano also asked to keep the LDP Ordinance on a current agenda since it is still open for discussion.

A motion was duly made by Mr. Pierson to open discussion to the public and was seconded.  All agreed.  A motion to close was duly made and was seconded.  All agreed.

Chairman Giordano addressed Mr. Buzak regarding the Mendham Township Long Range Facilities Plan Presentation by the Mendham Township Board of Education which was received in November of 2006. Mr. Buzak will contact them with a letter to remind them of their obligation.

Motion to adjourn the meeting was duly made by Mayor Florek and seconded by Mrs. Link at 9:23 pm.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    Beth Foley

                                                                                    Board Secretary