EAST AMWELL PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 12, 2008 at 7:30 PM East Amwell
Municipal Building
Call to Order, Attendance and Pledge of Allegiance
This meeting of the East
Amwell Planning Board was opened on March 12, 2008 at 7:30 PM. The following
notice was read, “In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, this is a
regularly scheduled meeting pursuant to the annual meeting notice as published
in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Hunterdon County Democrat, a copy of the
agenda for this meeting was forwarded to the Hunterdon County Democrat, filed
in the Township Clerk’s Office and posted on the bulletin board on March 5,
2008.”
Present: Fred Gardner
Robert Gilbert
Gail Glashoff
Bela Kamensky
Linda Lenox
Don Reilly, Chairman
Dart Sageser
Michael Weis
Joe Wolfgang
Roger DeLay
Frank Banisch, Planner
Chris Norman, Attorney
Dennis O’Neal, Engineer
Excused: Roberta Canfield
Citizens’ Privilege to Speak on Items Not on the
Agenda
Chairman Reilly opened the
floor to public comment on anything not listed on the agenda. No one came
forward. A motion by Fred Gardner, seconded by Gail Glashoff to close to the
public was unanimously approved.
Review of Minutes
A motion by Gail Glashoff,
seconded by Fred Gardner to approve the minutes from 2/13/08 was approved with
a few minor revisions noted. Michael Weis abstained.
New Business – Other
Informal Discussion: Mid-Atlantic Equine Center –
Block 8 Lot 26.01
Proposal for temporary shed/accessory structures on
the property
Attorney Connelly came
forward on behalf of the Equine Center and addressed the Board saying that
circumstances have changed and his clients no longer believe that the sheds
will be necessary. He noted that they will still be pursuing the proposed
addition to the site in the near future.
East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – March
12, 2008
Public Hearing: Pantel/Rynearson –– Block 2 Lot 2
Preliminary and Final Major Subdivision
Present for the application
was Rich Pantel, Applicant and Professional Engineer and Planner along with his
Attorney Karl Kemm of Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLC.
Michael Weis explained that
the Application Review Committee (ARC) had met on November 1, 2007 and
recommended at that time that the application be deemed complete and the
applicant should proceed to the full board. It was noted that since that time,
there have been some revisions made to the original application.
Engineer O’Neal reviewed the
checklist and noted the following requests:
# 8: Traffic Impact Statement
– Ms. Glashoff noted she believed it was imperative that a traffic impact study
be conducted with respect to this application. A submission waiver was
requested.
#20: Twenty-six (26) copies
of any protective covenants, easements and/or deed restrictions applying to the
subject site, whether recorded or unrecorded. A submission waiver was
requested.
#23: Number for the
application...a submission waiver was requested.
#27: Each submission shall be
drawn at an appropriate scale not less than 1” = 50’ or 100’ and shall be
submitted on one (1) of the four (4) following standard sheet sizes...a waiver
was requested for sheets 2 & 3 in order for a 1” = 160’ scale to be used to
show the entire tract of land.
#30: For a final major
subdivision only – items A-K. A submission waiver was requested allowing all
items to be provided after preliminary review has been completed.
Engineer O’Neal indicated the
requested waivers were not unreasonable and he believed that the applicant
could proceed with the public hearing. A motion by Fred Gardner, seconded by
Bela Kamensky to deem the application complete was unanimously approved.
Rich Pantel came forward and
explained that the application is for the subdivision of 67.18 acres, Block
2 Lot 2, in the Amwell Valley
Agricultural District. The proposal is to create 9 new residential lots on
15.81 acres and leave the remaining 51.37 acres as farm land. In additional to
the 9 new residential lots, the applicant is proposing to put another residence
behind the existing Rynearson farm/home on Block 2 Lot 2. The site will include a detention basin for the proposed
development with groundwater recharge capabilities, wetlands, a farm dwelling
and the existing related farm buildings. There are no bulk variances being
requested.
Since Mr. Pantel has
previously appeared before the Board, he was accepted as an expert to provide
testimony on this application.
Exhibit A-1:
Sheet #3 from the submitted plans was presented.
Exhibit A-2:
Sheet #4 from the submitted plans was presented.
East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – March
12, 2008
The plans show 9 new
residential lots on the southerly portion of the property, each approximately
1.5 acres in size, for single family homes. The configuration is 3 lots off of
Route 604 with a common driveway and a 6 lot cul-de-sac off of Rynearson Road
with one additional home to be built behind Mr. Rynearson’s existing farm.
The cul-de-sac will be 20’
wide pavement with a grass island that the Homeowners Association will
maintain. Access to the detention basin is a proposed gravel driveway east of
proposed lot 2.11. The lots on 604 will include dry wells for drainage.
Mr. Pantel addressed Engineer
O’Neal’s 3/5/08 Stormwater Management review memo stating he agrees with all of
his comments except, the comments regarding the drywells for the proposed lots
along 604. Mr. Pantel stated the drywells are needed because of the land
topography. The detention basin will not be effective for these lots. Mr.
Pantel said the drywells will be able to handle a 25 year storm which would be
a 3” rain. Engineer O’Neal commented that his review memo reflected the State
DEP requirements for drywells.
With regard to Engineer
O’Neal’s 3/5/08 Surveying review memo, Mr. Pantel agrees to implement all of Mr.
O’Neal’s suggestions when the final version of the plans is prepared.
Mr. Pantel addressed Engineer
O’Neal’s 3/5/08 General Engineering review memo. He stated he will work
something out with Mr. O’Neal with respect to the suggested berm on the north side
of the access road to the detention basin. With regard to the suggested
conservation easement on proposed lot 2.16, Mr. Pantel said he objects to
having an actual conservation easement on the lot to protect the existing small
grove of trees because it will greatly confine the building envelope for a
potential homeowner who purchases this lot. Mr. Sageser, who is also on the
Environmental Commission commented that they too, would like to see the grove
protected in some way or offset landscaping done on the lot. Mr. Pantel agreed
to work with Planner Banisch to come up with a landscape plan they can both
agree on. Planner Banisch suggested utilizing fencing and naturalized plantings
to help define property lines.
Mr. Sageser suggested the use
of plastic geo-pavers for the access drive to the detention basin in an effort
to “emphasize the farming community landscape and soften the suburban
subdivision appearance.” He explained that the pavers would allow some grass to
grow in between the blocks and would make the access drive less noticeable.
There was some discussion on
the underground fire tanks with respect to the ordinance. Mr. Pantel would
prefer to have individual suppression systems installed in each of the proposed
homes. It was suggested a meeting with the fire company be set up to discuss
this matter.
Engineer O’Neal commented on
the open lands ratio with respect to the Letter of Interpretation (LOI) from
the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). He stated the applicant is
taking a risk by proceeding with the application prior to receiving an LOI
because based on the DEP’s determination of wetlands, the applicant may have to
reduce the amount of requested lots. Mr. O’Neal also suggested that a grading
plan be submitted for each lot before any building permits are issued.
East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – March
12, 2008
Planner Banisch addressed his
review memo stating that he had identified some of the provisions that relate
to the open lands ratio and until more information is received regarding the
wetlands, no final determinations can be made. Mr. Banisch noted that 50 acres
of this lot is proposed to be a permanently deed restricted farm property and
suggested that Mr. Rynearson’s existing farm home be retained and preserved as
part of the rural character of the community.
Mr. Pantel noted that part of
the Township Ordinance allows for the farm home to be used for farm labor
housing and stated that he would agree to deed restricting the dwelling so that
it can’t be rented to a third party that is not somehow involved with the
operation of the farm. Mr. Banisch suggested that he and Mr. Pantel work this
out in a manner that is acceptable to the Board. Attorney Norman suggested
there be a deed restriction for the home to serve as an accessory use to a
farm, but not as a stand alone principle residential use. Mr. Pantel noted the
Rynearsons will have life rights to the existing home and this restriction could
only take effect after the Rynearson’s no longer reside there.
Ms. Lenox stated that
placement of the proposed new homesite in the center of the preserved lot was
not a desirable location from a farming perspective.
Planner Banisch also
commented on the three proposed homes along Route 604 and suggested the corner
lot be moved up Rynearson Road. This reconfiguration would require a variance
from the open lands ratio. Moving this lot would benefit the stormwater runoff
because drainage from this lot would now go into the detention basin. Mr.
Sageser noted the very steep common driveway that is being proposed for the
homes along Route 604 and suggested that a driveway for them come off of the
cul-de-sac. There was some discussion on repositioning these homes so that the
backyards would face Route 604.
Chairman Reilly asked if all
of the issues brought up concerning drainage, driveways, lot configurations, and
the detention basin needed to be dealt with before moving forward. Attorney
Norman commented that the law requires “all fundamental issues” of an
application to be resolved prior to approval.
A motion by Bela Kamensky,
seconded by Gail Glashoff to open to the public was unanimously approved.
Mike Gibson of 59 Rosement
Ringoes Road came forward and stated he opposed the subdivision because it
hurts the rural nature of the town. He also expressed concern about water
runoff, traffic and the use of internal, individual suppression systems being
installed.
Chairman Reilly mentioned
that the proposed plan before the Planning Board conforms to the Township’s
zoning.
Phyllis Schray of 142 Boss
Road came forward and stated she agreed with what Mr. Gibson had to say and
also expressed that she would rather see the front of the houses along Route
604, not the backyards and did not agree with the suggested reconfiguration of
the driveways.
Kevin Inglin of 12 Haines
Road came forward and clarified that there will be no street lighting. He also
suggested that all the proposed homes be taken off of Route 604 and all of the
development be done off of Rynearson Road.
East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – March
12, 2008
Connie Mitchko of 46 Dunkard
Church Road came forward and expressed concern over the significant flooding
that occurs on Dunkard Church Road because the creek overflows. She also stated
the road isn’t wide enough to accommodate all of the potential construction
traffic.
Ron Mulcahy of 63 Dunkard
Church Road came forward and expressed opposition to the subdivision stating
the aesthetics of the area will be destroyed.
Judy Steenman of 20 Haines
Road came forward and expressed concern over the impact the detention basin may
have on her property since this will be the second one abutting her lot.
Mr. Pantel noted the
detention basins are designed to prevent giant surges of water and the
discharge will run along the west side of the property and travel east toward
Dunkard Creek. He commented the basin will be designed in accordance with DEP
regulations.
A motion by Michael Weis,
seconded by Gail Glashoff to close to the public was unanimously approved.
Mr. Wolfgang left the meeting
at this time, 10:05PM.
Engineer O’Neal suggested Mr.
Pantel revise his plan to address the issues the Board discussed and return
with a new site plan. Planner Banisch agreed. Ms. Glashoff commented that she
would like to see the fire tank issue resolved before the applicant returns to
the Board.
A motion by Dart Sageser,
seconded by Rob Gilbert to adjourn the Pantel/Rynearson subdivision public
hearing until the Board’s 4/9/08 meeting was unanimously approved. It was noted
that the applicant will not have to renotice.
The Board took a 5 minute
recess from 10:30 PM – 10:35 PM.
New Business – continued
Discussion: Planning Board Goals/Priorities 2008
Joanna Slagle of Planner
Banisch’s office presented the Board with a strategic plan and time frame for
addressing each of the items on the 2008 goals/priorities list. The Board
formed a “Tree Harvesting Ordinance” Subcommittee consisting of Fred Gardner,
Gail Glashoff and Michael Weis to review this ordinance and get back to the
Board with any suggestions. The remaining goals/priorities will be listed on
upcoming agendas.
Oral Reports
FOSPC – Linda Lenox noted the
Committee will be holding a preservation outreach fair at the Municipal
Building on 3/31/08 at 7:30 PM.
Agricultural Advisory
Committee – No report given.
Environmental Commission – No
report given.
SM Smart Growth Grant – No
report given.
Stormwater Committee – No
report given.
COAH – Gail Glashoff noted
there will be a breakfast talk on the subject at the County Building on Route
12, Monday morning 3/17/08 at 7:30 AM.
East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – March
12, 2008
PB Secretary –Ms. Andrews
noted the final report for the Sourland Mountain Watershed Protection Plan is
on file in the Clerk’s office and is available on disc and in book form for
anyone interested in reviewing it. Mr. Weis added that there were about 12 more
letters sent out to realtors regarding the sensitivity of the Sourland Mountain
area.
Chairman – No report given.
Correspondence
Chairman Reilly noted he
spoke briefly to Attorney Norman regarding the letter the Board received from
resident Joan McGee which raised a number of important issues concerning a
possible application where a helipad and lodging facilities may be requested.
Chairman Reilly addressed some of the specific issues saying, “We have
jurisdiction over this to determine whether this is an accessory use.” He
commented on the significance of the possible application being a request for a
helipad, not a heliport which is a significant distinction relative to the use.
Additionally, it was noted that the potential request would not be for
“residential” facilities which is an important detail.
Open to the Public
There was no public present.
Presentation of Vouchers
A motion by Gail Glashoff,
seconded by Rob Gilbert to pay the vouchers as listed on the agenda was
unanimously approved.
Chairman Reilly adjourned the
meeting at 11:01 PM.
________________________________
Maria Andrews, Administrative
Officer