MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

June 29, 2006

Chairman Mike Lightner read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice: Adequate notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, was posted with the Borough Clerk and on the Bulletin Board and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.

ROLL CALL:

Board Members Present: Nix, Selver (arr. 8:55), Pitcher, Dunn, Webb, Gormally, Shaw, Palmer, Lightner Absent: Batty, Melikian

Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer William Ryden

REVIEW OF MINUTES:

The revised minutes of the May 25 meeting were approved by voice vote.

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTION:

ECLYPSIS CORP. Appl. #06-222

The motion for approval of the modified resolution of approval was made by Mike Lightner, seconded by Gary Webb and carried by 3-0 vote of eligible members.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

New applications:

ALEX CHEREPAKHOV 9 Oak Lane

Bl. 80, Lot 53 Appl. #06-224

Major Soil Moving RA zone

Marc Walker, engineer for the application, and Cherepakhov were sworn in. Walker described the variance application approved by the Zoning Board for additions and relocation of the driveway. Since that variance, it was determined that they needed a soil moving permit to modify the driveways. There will be only one means of ingress and egress. There is a steep slope to enter the garage. These changes will require cut of 108 cubic yards and fill of 270 c.y. 162 c. y. will have to be trucked in from Condurso’s in Montville Township. The traffic route would most likely be from the Boulevard to Briarcliff to Oak Lane. Any changes would be communicated to Bill Ryden. Ryden’s report of May 10 approved the plan.

In response to Steve Shaw’s question, Walker said this plan of driveway improvements has begun. The site needs to be maintained so contractors can get in and out. Palmer noted that the stone walls should be maintained in the Mountain Lakes tradition. Walker estimated that there would be 10 truckloads of fill imported. Gormally asked for the location of the existing storm drain (near Briarcliff.) No public comments.

Ryden stated he is satisfied with the plan. Peter Henry asked for a written statement for the source and routes of the fill. The motion for approval with Henry’s condition was made by Steve Shaw, seconded by Rob Pitcher and carried by 8-0 roll call vote.

ERIC BECHT 251 Boulevard

Bl. 55, Lot 44 Appl. #06-225

Major Soil Moving RAA zone

Eric Becht was sworn in and testified that they recently received zoning board approval for major modifications to their house and driveway. He is a professional engineer. Becht submitted exhibits A1, 5 photos on a board, A2 – elevation, A3 - proposed site plan, A4 – side and rear elevations of the house. Becht noted that the major impact of the soil movement was to increase the grade to reduce the appearance of the height of the house. The cut and fill calculations came to 264 of cut and 372 of fill. The difference would be used to raise the elevation of the driveway. He proposes to import the fill from Mt. Hope Rock Products. Becht testified that they have improved the drainage and this project will reduce the ILC on the property.

Joan Nix noted that the stairs and landing are closer to the street than the front yard setback requirement. Peter Henry said that we are dealing only with soil movement; if there are inconsistencies, that will be handled by the construction department because these steps may not qualify as ‘short entry’. We should let the construction official know of this conflict. Nix noted that the terrace also projects beyond the approved setback. Henry - we don’t know whether the Zoning Board missed the setbacks or whether the resolution is erroneous. The ZBA chair should be notified that the plan includes structures beyond the 78.3 setback. We don’t know whether the 78.3 setback in the resolution was specified only for the house or whether steps were considered.

Becht testified that this plan, dated June 2, differs from what was approved by the ZBA only regarding the soil movement issues. He said the transition from the Boulevard to their driveway will be gradual. Nix asked whether some of the fill would be in Borough property. Becht said yes, some of it. Henry agreed with Nix that we didn’t have the authority to approve that. No one knew whether there are ongoing issues with that because every property on the Boulevard crosses that easement. We don’t know whether we can approve soil movement on that area. Steve Shaw said that the change looks minor to him. Bill Ryden asked whether this is Borough property or public right-of-way. Webb said it is a linear park, the same as any other driveway on the Boulevard.

Lightner suggested that Becht either get the Borough’s consent or amend the application so there is no impact on the Borough property. Webb – if the grade is changed simply by adding asphalt, that is not a problem. However this seems to be a larger change.

Peter Henry – he could revise his plan to not effect the grade change on Borough property or the Board could approve the soil movement permit subject to the Borough’s permission to have it’s property effected in accordance with this plan.

Lightner preferred the latter alternative. There was discussion as to whether that could be done administratively. Shaw suggested a letter to the Council which would follow Gary Webb’s recommendation. Palmer and Nix expressed concern about preservation of a tree on the front left of the property where the grade is changing by four feet. Ryden said that the details of the soil erosion plan and the tree management plan will be part of the construction approval process.

Becht will communicate with the Borough regarding the right-of-way.

The ZBA approval was conditioned on compliance with the tree management plan.

Ryden required that Becht provide the Borough with final calculations of the soil movement and tree management plans.

Steve Shaw moved to approve the plan subject to conditions stated, plus communication with Ryden about source and routes of fill, seconded by Gary Webb and approved by 8-0 roll call vote.

There was discussion as to whether the Zoning Board should/could handle soil moving issues. Ryden pointed out that soil moving is not usually an issue until after the variances are granted.

Carried from May 25:

WEBER HOMES Fanny Road & Morris Avenue

Bl. 88, Lots 17.01, 18, 19, 20 Appl. #06-221

Major Site Plan R-AH zone

Attorney Roy Kurnos introduced engineer Marc Walker. Walker noted that he is happy with this design and appreciates having the opportunity to present a design within his own commnunity. He feels that one of the keys to this project is elimination of the long standing eyesore on this property. They have reduced the height of the buildings along the street and have addressed concerns of the fire department; in respect to all the agencies that have dealt with this project, they have worked with and complied with the RSIS, stormwater regulations etc.

Referring to Ryden’s 1/18 report, Walker said they have selected a number of items to discuss tonight. Ryden noted that some of the minor enginnering items would be detailed with construction; he conferred with Walker as to what needed to be addressed tonight.

Referring to page 2,B3 (variances required), Walker submitted A14, Exhibit A29.

Lightner asked whether a sign variance was required. Kurnos said that they suggested a temporary sign on the piers which could be removed after development.

On A14, proposed entry, Walker described the piers that would need a front setback variance because they would be 10 feet from the right-of-way.

Walker showed the pump station and generator to be located behind the last unit along Morris Ave. The generator will be gas powered, 4 ½’H, by 6’ x 6’. That would technically be a structure within the front yard setback. It will be landscaped so that most passersby would not notice it. Ryden noted that it could be considered a utility. The same situation exists for the covered dumpster on the northern end of the project along Fanny Road. Walker believed the only variance required would be for the piers.

Regarding B4, the plan will be modified to conform with the new ordinance.

Item 5 - extensive testimony by Walker, Minnow & Weber addressed that.

Item 6 - they will be cleaning the contaminated site, a major improvement in the plan.

They will provide a wood chipped path to connect with the YMCA’s path, eventually leading to the high school fields. Palmer questioned how the paths would be connected to avoid the structures on the baseball field. Walker said that the baseball area would be avoided.

Board members requested consideration of maximizing connection to and continuation of the existing paths in the area.

Item C 1 – the 28 foot wide street allows for on-street parking; however our design provides enough parking so that roadway parking is not required. Deminimis exceptions are required from RSIS. We have posted the speed in this project at 15 mph. This is a destination, not a through road. The police department report stated that people cutting through this project could be ticketed. Walker distributed a letter to Mark Gimigliano, in contact with the DCA, stating that we would be allowed to reduce the speed. Walker noted that if cut-throughs become an issue, the Condo Association could hire a guard to prevent cut-throughs but allow residents to enter and exit. These will be private roads maintained by the association. Other deminimis exceptions are absence of sidewalks, horizontal geometry and 100’ center line radius, (two are 85 and 72 feet.) We need to notify the State and they have to agree with the exceptions. Ryden concurred that the applicant needs to get that approval from the DCA.

Walker produced a letter confirming his meeting with the Fire Department; there was no response from the Fire Department, considered as compliance.

Gormally asked if there was any consideration given to restricting exit onto Fanny Road, noting that at this time of year, traffic from the YMCA Day Camp backs up to theBoulevard. Gormally requested that the internal road be one-way so exit would be only onto Morris. Ryden noted that the traffic expert addressed this, thought the Morris egress was safe and did not recommend limiting egress. The expert noted that the site distance was safe and far enough away from the intersection. Walker noted that the site distance here exceeds the standard. The Fanny Road driveway has 600 feet to the west and 550 to the east. Ryden noted that an exit onto Morris would require two left turns to get to Fanny Road.

Item 8, comments about Fanny Rd. and Morris, they are discussing improvements to Fanny Road with Boonton. Kurnos said there is no deal with Boonton but we will comply voluntarily. We have no sidewalk requirements. We will get a road opening permit from Boonton (Item 7). Ryden recommended that we provide Belgian block curbing along Morris and around the corner on Fanny. Ryden suggested that items 4 thru 10 be conditions of the resolution. Walker proposed curbing only from Fanny to the Morris Ave. entrance.

Item 19 - roads will be privately owned.

The developer will suggest a new project name for consideration by Council. It was recommended that the road and development names be the same.

Section E.- stormwater management is under jurisdiction of the DEP. Ryden noted that he approved subject to the details being satisfied.

Section D – Borough water capacity should be satisfied. Walker – we are discussing with the Town of Boonton to use the water main that is currently on that site. The options regarding the water supply will be resolved by Council.

F6 - the new lighting plan dated 4/14/06 provides a reduction of lighting from the initial plan.

Item 9 – Ryden said four lots will be merged to one.

There was discussion and speculation as to how or whether the age restriction could be lifted.

#13 – project will be constructed in one phase

#18 – soil moving is part of this application; removal of contaminated soil is underway.

All ingress and egress during soil removal is from the Morris avenue.

Walker summarized that they have addressed all items in Ryden’s report.

Joan Nix stated that a letter of no adverse effect must be obtained from the State because this is included in our historic district.

Barbara Palmer – we have raised two other variances: bedroom distribution and location of COAH housing, not more than 20% and not to cluster COAH housing.

Kurnos – COAH regulations provide for senior housing that 50% of units should be efficiencies or one bedrooms. When your ordinance was drafted it did not apply to age restricted housing so it does not apply to this project. We believe that we comply with the proposed bedroom mix. We are not obligated to the 20% limitation. We are not building any efficiencies.

On the clustering issue, the Wildwood Meadows plan had the COAH units in one building. Your ordinance says that the affordable units should not be grouped or clustered separately from the market units; this does not mean they have to be mixed within the same buildings. That differs from the Boonton Township ordinance that requires them to be in the same building. This building is not isolated. Lightner asked if this plan doesn’t show disparity between the market and the COAH units. Board members noted that there could be an interpretation that this plan does separate the COAH units. Steve Shaw said that this building is definitely part of the larger community and is next to and across the street from market rate units. Lightner – there is a potential for that building to be treated differently from the rest of the development.

Walker – the townhomes would be serviced by a hauler, just as individual houses are. The multi-family units would be serviced per building.

Peter Henry – the inclusionary term refers to the COAH requirement that these units be within the same community. Kurnos says that if the COAH units should be within the same structure, it would have been stated in the ordinance. This building is not isolated from the other buildings in the community. Given the disagreement, the applicant could request an interpretation of the ordinance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment or, if enough Board members believe that this plan does not comply, the applicant could request a variance from this Board.

Kurnos asked whether a variance could be secured without prejudice, that is without admitting that the variance is required. Henry noted that this variance could be included in the “omnibus” category, i.e. it would not necessarily need to be specifically stated in the notice.

Kurnos pointed out that this is not a notice issue. The public has been noticed, there is no member of the public here to comment or object. He pointed out that the Zoning Board will have no greater insight to interpret this ordinance than this Board does. Kurnos stated that the benefits of this plan outweigh the detriments. It would be difficult to integrate the size and amenities of the two types of units, i.e. COAH and market units.

Kurnos – I could ask for a vote tonight and accept all the conditions except for this one and I could go into court and object to that one decision.

Steve Shaw stated that it would better serve the public interest to apply for a variance here than to go to the Zoning Board because they did not draft the ordinance and have no background with COAH or this project.

Joan Nix – an interpretation can not be made without context.

Shaw – what if Planning Board members do not think a variance is required?

Henry – the Board should decide how it wishes to proceed.

Lightner proposed a motion that this does require a variance but the applicant has the choice to get an interpretation from the ZBA. Frank Dunn (former Chair of the ZBA) – the Zoning Board would have a great deal of difficulty; it would take them a long time to understand the issues. Why wouldn’t the Council decide how to proceed? Henry – this Board needs to decide what they need to do. Steve Shaw seconded Lightner’s motion. Selver – this Board could refer the question to the ZBA for interpretation. Lightner withdrew his motion to refer this to the ZBA, Selver seconded.

Steve Shaw seconded the initial motion that a variance is required. The roll call vote was 5-4 (Yes: Nix, Dunn, Gormally, Palmer, Lightner. No: Selver, Pitcher, Webb, Shaw). Paul Selver moved to refer the issue of interpretation to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (i.e. this arrangement of a separate building does or does not satisfy the ordinance requirement of integration.) Gormally seconded the motion. Henry said that if both motions pass, the Planning Board could refer the question to the ZBA. Shaw stated that the benefit of the plan to this site is clear. Potential litigation does not serve the community considering the present condition of this site. He strongly urges that this issue does not go to the ZBA. It is ambiguous. We know the project, we know the history, we have heard all this testimony. Who would be better qualified to determine the outcome than this Board? Selver – in terms of economic integration, it would be better to totally integrate the units.

The motion to send the ordinance interpretation to the Zoning Board passed by 5-4 roll call vote (Yes – Nix, Selver, Gormally, Palmer, Lightner. No - Pitcher, Dunn, Webb, Shaw).

Attorney Kurnos said an extension for this Board to act was granted through July 31; the application was carried to the regularly scheduled July 27 meeting.

Barbara Palmer was the only member indicating she would not be here for the July 27 meeting.

Carried from May 25:

MASTER PLAN: Chapter XIII - Stormwater Management Plan Element

Peter Henry recommended that the title be modified to Stormwater Management Plan Element.

Gary Webb described two additional changes suggested by Barbara Palmer: page 1, the paragraph beginning “To minimize pollutants… should be divided into 5 separate bullets; and

page 2, modification of the last sentence.

The motion to approve the resolution to adopt the Stormwater Management Plan Element was made by Gary Webb, seconded by Rob Pitcher and carried by 7-0-1 roll call vote (Shaw abstained.)

The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m

.

Respectfully submitted,

Marge Jackson, Secretary