Grundy Reporter

Morris Township Board met June 18.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

Call to Order

The regular meeting of the Township of Morris Planning Board was called to order on Monday evening June 18, 2018, at 7:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 50 Woodland Avenue, Morris, Township of Morris, N.J.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Franz Vintschger, Vice-Chairman

Statement of Adequate Notice: The Board Vice-Chairman issued the following statement:

“I hereby announce and state that adequate notice of this meeting was provided by the Secretary of this Planning Board by preparing a notice dated June 12, 2018, specifying the time, date and place of this meeting, posting such notice on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building; filing said notice with the Clerk of the Township of Morris; forwarding the notice to the Morris County Daily Record and the Morris News Bee, and forwarding, by mail, the said notice to all persons on the request list, and I hereby hand a copy of such notice to the Secretary of the Planning Board for inclusion in the minutes of this meeting, all of the above actions being in accordance with N.J.S.A. 10:4-6, et seq., Open Public Meetings Act.”

Roll Call of Planning Board Members and Professionals

Members Present

Mr. Franz Vintschger, Vice Chairman

Mr. Anthony Romano

Mr. Jeremiah Loughman

Mr. Jesse Kaar

Ms. Linda Murphy

Mr. Peter Mancuso

Mr. Todd Goldberg, Alternate #2

Members Absent

Mr. Matheu Nunn

Mr. Rick A. Haan

Mr. Laurence D. Bobbin

Mr. Andres Benvenuto, Alternate #1

Professionals Present

Mr. Steven Warner, Board Attorney

Ms. Kate Keller, Planning Board Planner

Mr. James Slate, Planning Board Engineer

Ms. Sonia Santiago, Board Secretary

Consideration for approval of the minutes of the April 17, 2017 regular meeting.

On a motion duly made by Mr. Mancuso, seconded by Ms. Murphy and unanimously carried, the minutes of the April 17, 2017 meeting were approved as circulated and placed on file in the office of the Planning Board.

Resolution

Consideration of the following resolution thereby memorializing the action taken by the Board at the June 4, 2018 meeting:

PB-05-18, Leonardo Muñoz

Minor Subdivision Block 10304, Lot 21, 11 Carlton Street, RA-7 zone.

Applicant proposes a minor subdivision to create one additional lot.

Mr. Mancuso moved, seconded by Mr. Goldberg, and roll call as indicated that resolution of approval, attached hereto and by reference made part of the official minutes of this meeting, be adopted as circulated, memorializing the action taken by the Planning Board at the June 4, 2018 meeting.

Roll Call (voting members)

Mr. Romano YES

Mr. Goldberg YES

Mr. Kaar YES

Ms. Murphy YES

Mr. Loughman YES

Mr. Mancuso YES

Mr. Vintschger YES

Public Hearing

The following members recused themselves from the following application

Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Loughman

PB-03-18, Footes Lane, LLC Minor Subdivision / Variance Block 6302, Lot 51, 1 Footes Lane, RA-25 zone.

Applicant proposes a minor subdivision to create one additional lot. Applicant also seeks a front yard setback of 39.7 feet where 60 feet is required on the new lot.

Proof of publication and affidavit of service filed and approved by the Board attorney.

Mr. David B. Brady, attorney for the applicant entered his appearance and presented the application to the Board.

TCC report dated April 5, 2018 was read into the record by Ms. Kate Keller, Asst. Township Planner.

Site inspection report dated April 20, 2018 was read into the record by Jesse Kaar

The following professionals were sworn in by the Board Attorney.

Richard Schommer, Professional Engineer / Planner James R. Slate, Township Engineer Kate Keller, Asst. Township Planner

The following exhibits were submitted during testimony.

A-1 Colored Minor Subdivision Plan

A-2 Google Area Map

A-3 Proposed Building Elevation

Summary of Testimony – Richard Schommer, Professional Engineer / Planner

Mr. Schommer proceeded to review exhibit A-1 which consisted of the proposed minor subdivision plan. The property is irregular shape and is approximately 4.47 acres and is in the RA-25 zone. There is an existing dwelling that has access on Footes Lane. The property contains wetlands. The green line on the plan encompasses the area which is within the conservation easement. The wetlands on the property have been procured by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection and they have confirmed the limits and location of the wetlands area as well as the wetlands transition areas. Furthermore, the applicant went through the process of seeking approval and permits from DEP to modify the wetland transition area to obtain an area that is buildable. DEP granted an approval to allow an area on James Street to be built upon. That area is approximately 4,700 square feet and that is the most DEP will allow as buildable area. The remainder of the property will remain wetlands and transition area. What that means is that even though they can’t be built on, it can be used as passive recreation and passive use area, but you cannot built structures on it or cut down trees. The total conservation area is 3.34 acres which represents 75% of the property.

Exhibit A-2 consists of an aerial map. What we have is the RA-25 zone which encompasses the area of Footes Lane on the opposite side of James Street is the RA-15 zone, Strawberry Lane and Cottonwood Road is RA-15 which requires 15,000 sf of area. To the north is the OSGU zone and RA-25 zone that’s been developed with townhouses. So we have townhouses to the north, and Footes Lane is to the south. There are not a lot of homes in the area. There are no established setbacks or patterns in terms of development or streetscape. The homes on the opposite side face Strawberry Lane so you are looking at the back of the houses which front on Strawberry Lane. There is a stockade fence which separates the back of the homes from James Street and there is also vegetation within the area. Shown on the exhibit is the outline of the property and the proposed lot line and we have also shown the proposed dwelling. In terms of the size of the dwelling is 2600 sf house, certainly not a large house compared to the other structures along James Street. In terms of the setback we are seeking relief for the front yard setback. If you look at the distances between these properties the closest house is approximately 160 feet and this is the back of the house on Strawberry Lane. Our setback relief is for a 39.7 ft. and the minimum setback requirement is 50 feet in the RA-15 zone. We are creating two lots, one lot contains the existing house, there are no changes to the property which is lot 51 which will contain 92,328 sf or 2.2 acres it is seven times the lot size for the zone. The new lot that we are creating is 51.01 to the northern part of the property will contain 98,447 sf. The only relief that we are seeking and it is as a result of the wetlands is for the front yard setback all other bulk requirements will be met. Given the large size of the lot we are well below what is contemplated for the RA-25 zone. The density will be well below of zone requirement. The variance that we are seeking is the C1 hardship variance. If you look at the MLUL it specifically identifies the shape of property, shallowness, topography conditions with physical features and wetlands being the physical features on the property identifies those as conditions that provide practical difficulties for hardships to applicants seeking to develop the property. These constraints representing approximately 75% of the property represent a hardship in seeking to develop the property. We have this large lot within the RA-25 zone standards, we think we can get seven lots out of it, but because of the presence of wetlands, transition areas and now the conservation easement we are limited to one lot and one small specific area which we can develop on James Street.

From the zoning and planning standpoint presence of the hardship meets the positive criteria with respect to granting variance relief and the negative criteria is that relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or without substantially impairing the intent and the purpose of the zoning plan and or zoning ordinance. Looking at the public good typically looks at what are the impacts for the surrounding area and the surrounding properties. The lot is across from the RA-15 zone which requires 15,000 sf which are much smaller lot sizes our lot size is much larger. In terms of the development that will exist on the property the size of the house and location of the house are not drastically different than what you see in the RA-15 zone. The front yard setback for a RA-15 zone is 50 feet we are roughly at 40 feet and we are basically the sole house on James Street. With no other dwelling along James Street there is no pattern of development that is a different streetscape. There is no significant impact to the pattern of development we are the only standalone home on the street. Given the features there is no adverse impact to the neighboring properties. The subdivision is pretty much straight forward and will fit well in the area.

Mr. Schommer proceeded to describe exhibit A-3 which consisted of a schematic photograph of the proposed house. He stated that the owner designed the plan of what is proposed. It is not a three car garage it is only one car garage the other two garage doors are only for aesthetics. There is plenty of room on the property for a vehicle to turn around without having to back out into James Street. We show some shrubbery along James Street but we also show shrubbery along the edges. DEP as part of the approval required that there be some delineation by vegetation or a fence. We think vegetation makes more sense that would fit in with what is around it. The exhibit shows the Nature of the property behind it. There will be a large amount of green area on the property. This plan shows that there will be a balcony for the upper floor, the main entrance is on the side of the building, and the rest is for decoration. The porch is being proposed in the back of the house. There is very limited buildable area as define by the DEP permit; utilities will be bought from across James Street. There will be a drywell for runoff of the property. Applicant will comply with all County Planning Board and DEP requirements. A discussion was carried regarding the size of the house, the buildable area and the conservation easement among the Board members and applicant’s professionals.

Mr. Slate stated that as a condition of approval the applicant is to close all open building permits on the existing house. There is a tree that is being use as a guide wire and the tree seems to be in bad shape and we would like for the applicant to address that with JCP&L and have the tree removed and replaced according to the Township requirements.

Mr. Warner asked if the conservation easement has been recorded and submitted, and is the LOI letter up to date, per TCC report is the chicken wire addressed, is the applicant stipulating to the conditions stated by Mr. Slate. The applicant agreed to stipulate to the conditions. Is the front yard setback similar to any other front yard setback in the area? Mr. Schommer stated that there is no other dwelling along James Street that it can be compared to. Are there any 40 foot front yard setbacks in the area? Mr. Schommer stated that there is none that he is aware of. A discussion was carried regarding what can be built on the property. Mr. Schommer stated that because they are looking at subdividing the property they are unable to comply with the zoning requirements due to the property constraints. The Environmental constraint of the property represents a physical constraint and hardship which occupies a large portion of the property and there is no part of the property that is usable and meets the setback requirements. Mr. Schommer further stated that his argument is upon the C1 hardship.

The meeting was opened to the public for questions of the witnesses; the following persons appeared to be heard.

Barry Schub 4 Wren Court

Allen McAlpin 5 Armstrong Road

Glenn Waldorf 6 Wren Court

Daniel Brownstein 8 Trent Court

Lee Goldberg 10 Arrowhead Road

Charles Strickland 184 James Street

Public portion closed at 8:46 pm

Mr. Warner asked the applicant if they would be willing to stipulate to add side walk and linked it to the existing side walk. Applicant disagreed to stipulate to the side walk because the cost of the sidewalk is disproportionate to one house.

The meeting was opened to the public for comments; the following person appeared to be heard.

Daniel Brownstein 8 Trent Court

Public portion closed at 8:48 pm

Ms. Murphy stated she was concerned about the front yard and that the property does not have any back yard and even with the discussion of the wrap around porch this looks more like a townhouse than a single family home and this is a concern.

Mr. Brady stated that what we have here is a huge lot compared to the standard of 25,000 sf. we are not asking for four lots we are asking for one lot and that lot is constrained. We did not create the wetlands or the problem. The constraint already exists. The wetlands established the limits of where we can do anything. It is unusual to have a house that doesn’t have a lot of rear yard. The municipal land use law wants a variety of housing type. This provides a different housing type. The only effect is the front yard on James Street. There is no one that is going to be affected by it. The front yard setback might not be 50 feet and there is no pattern that is broken by this. We have a driveway that is designed so you have a car coming forward onto James Street. We are here for a subdivision we put the house forward so the Board can see that we are not creating a situation where the Board subdivides and creates an unbuildable lot. The reason we are here is for a subdivision to create a building lot. This will not be a detriment and it will function appropriately, although differently than maybe what most people are used to seeing. We have addressed the positive criteria in terms of hardship. Mr. Warner mentioned something with regard to a C2 flexible which applies when you look at the fact that by doing this we are moving forward by providing a variety of housing types and there is no negative impact here. We have proven our standards for the subdivision and we ask the Board to favorable approval of the application.

Mr. Mancuso moved, seconded by Mr. Kaar that approval be granted to the application of 1 Footes Lane, LLC thereby permitting the minor subdivision to create one additional lot on Block 6302, Lot 51 with conditions stipulated and that the Board Attorney be authorized to prepare a formal resolution memorializing action taken by the Board, same to be presented for consideration at the July 16, 2018 meeting of the Board.

Roll Call (voting members)

Mr. Romano YES

Mr. Kaar YES

Ms. Murphy NO

Mr. Mancuso YES

Mr. Vintschger YES

4 Ayes 1 Nays 0 Abstain

Recess taken at 8:56 pm

Meeting Reconvened at 9:02 pm

Mr. Loughman and Mr. Goldberg are seated for the following application.

PB-04-18, Louise Stryker Estate Minor Subdivision / Variance Block 6902, Lot 14, 188 James Street, RA-15 zone.

Applicant proposes a minor subdivision to create one additional lot. Applicant also seeks a lot width variance of 51.1 feet on Peach Tree Drive where 75 feet is required.

Proof of publication and affidavit of service filed and approved by the Board attorney.

Frederick Zelley, attorney for the applicant entered his appearance and presented the application to the Board.

TCC report dated April 19, 2018 was read into the record by Ms. Kate Keller, Township Planner.

Site inspection report dated April 20, 2018 was read into the record by Jesse Kaar.

The following professionals were sworn in by the Board Attorney.

Lawrence P. Stryker, Estate Executor

Ryan Smith, Professional Engineer

James R. Slate, Township Engineer

Kate Keller, Township Planner

The following exhibits were submitted during testimony

A-1 Colored rendering of the Minor Subdivision site Plan last revised date 5-23-18

A-2 Colored rendering of existing conditions

A-3 Colored rendering of the minor subdivision plan

A-4 Detail Sheet

A-5 Tree removal plan

A-6 Proposed Subdivision One

A-7 Proposed Subdivision Two

Summary of Testimony – Lawrence P. Stryker, Estate Executor

Mr. Stryker stated that he is the executor of his mothers estate. His parents bought the house in 1948 and he was raised in the area. My sister and I are the only beneficiaries of the estate. There are two issues my sister is a professor as I am at Rhode Island School and her husband who is also a professor has been diagnosed with dementia and is presently in a nursing home. I also have a severely handicapped granddaughter and would like to use some of the proceeds to modify my daughter’s house to accommodate the wheelchair. The idea is to maximize the property. There is no one living in the house at this time. There is no intent for the siblings to move into the house. The idea is to sell both lots.

The meeting was opened to the public for questions of the witnesses; no one appeared to be heard.

Summary of Testimony – Ryan Smith, Professional Engineer

Mr. Smith stated that existing lot 14 is an odd shaped lot that has frontage on James Street, Bell Drive and Peach Tree Way. What we are proposing is to subdivide the property into two lots; one with the existing house and one that has a proposed house. The flag lot is approximately 10,000 sf and it’s not usable, they have been prohibited from having a driveway onto James Street. The current driveway to the existing house goes out on Bell Drive. Bell Drive has a 50 foot ROW there is a portion abutting the lot that is larger than 50 feet but it was part of the original farm. So we have a large portion in the front that is not usable. In addition to that the lot is encumbered by wetlands which mean it has a 50 foot buffer around it. The 50 foot transition area and the wetlands itself covers approximately 0.34 acres leaving us with very little to work with. The two lots are developable and usable. Exhibit A-3 shows the proposed typical development that can be used for the second lot. The existing dwelling will be located on proposed lot 14 we have set the lot line between the two lots at what the combined side yard setback will be retaining the existing house, so there will be no variances required for the existing house. The remaining between the lot line and the wetlands is sufficient to build a typical dwelling, typical of the area basically 2400 or 2500 sf house with the driveway coming in off the cul de sac. The low spot in the area of the proposed driveway will be filled in, a lot of soil will be coming off this lot to build a dwelling specially to dig the foundation for the typical basement in the area and the storm water management system will be drywells, obviously they cannot distribute the soil on site in the wetlands areas it is prohibited by DEP, that actually has to be trucked it offsite. We are not proposing any disturbance on the wetlands.

The variance required for the 75 foot frontage can be eliminated by using the development scheme on exhibit A-6. What we can do is manufacture enough frontage by dedicating a semi-circle attached to the cul de sac to dedicate enough frontage so that arc of the ROW would be 75 feet like a typical cul de sac. What that does to this particular development is make the entire subdivision conforming and no variance will be required. It also takes away a good portion of the front yard because the right of way line will be further back, the setbacks will be further back, the house will be further back already encumbered by a large quantity of wetlands area and then encumbered more by the right of way, it shrinks the lot. There would be no reason to enlarge the cul de sac to supply a house with one driveway.

The other conforming subdivision we could do requires knocking down the existing house which is exhibit A-7. You could dedicate enough cul de sac area against Bell Drive. The hatched area shown on the plan would be dedicated and become part of Bell Drive which already has a large portion of un-useable area in order to provide 75 feet of frontage on each lot. We have two options both requiring dedicating right of way that’s very much un-useable as a right of way.

Mr. Smith further stated that the requirement for a cul de sac frontage is 75 feet and we are proposing 51.1 feet on Peach Tree Way, which it is sufficient to support a typical driveway. Not only is it sufficient for a typical driveway but a typical right of way is 50 feet wide and if I wanted to take a road off at the end of the cul de sac and run it 50 foot wide all the way out to James Street eventually I could. He stated he typically designs a fourteen foot wide driveway depending on the Township requirements. He further stated that there are steep slopes on the property and they were created by the development of the existing house. They are all man-made slopes and there is no State or Municipal regulated wetlands on the property were the house is located.

Typically a storm water system for a single family dwelling will be a drywell connected to the roof leaders and perhaps a drywell drain catch basin and there is sufficient area to do that. Storm water when used with the drywell system is infiltrated into the ground; if there were an overflow then it will be discharged into the wetlands area. Mr. Smith stated that there is a tree removal plan which Mr. Slate has already reviewed. A discussion was carried among the Board members and applicant’s professionals regarding the house size, cul de sac, steep slopes and setbacks.

Mr. Slate stated that he would prefer for the cul de sac not to be extended and allow the variance. Mr. Goldberg stated that the two concepts that the applicant proposes are ways to get around the variance relief that they are asking for, but what they are asking the Board is to make a decision on the minor subdivision on page three of five of the plans.

Ms. Keller stated that the options submitted where asked by the TCC. The application before the Board is for a minor subdivision with a C variance.

Mr. Warner asked for further clarification on the second of the two options in addition to everything else was that a shared driveway? Applicant stated that it will be sharing a common apron. The opinion would be to have two separate driveways. It will also require on exhibit A-7 the disturbance of manmade steep slopes. Mr. Warner asked from an engineering perspective other than mathematically on paper relieving the obligation to obtain a variance with respect to the lot width at the frontage what would anything on option one accomplish? Mr. Smith stated that it will be complying with the Zoning code. A discussion was carried regarding the front lot width among the Board professionals and applicant’s professionals.

The meeting was opened to the public for questions of the witness; the following persons appeared to be heard.

Jennifer Erdogan, 6 Peach Tree Way

Lee Goldberg, 10 Arrowhead Road

Bob Harris, 192 James Street

Public portion closed at 9:53 pm

The meeting was opened to the public for comments; the following persons appeared to be heard.

Jennifer Erdogan 6 Peach Tree Way

Public portion closed at 9:55 pm.

Mr. Kaar asked if the applicant was willing to correct the address for the existing house from James Street to Bell Drive for purposes of emergency response if the application were to be granted by the Board. Applicant agreed to change the address.

The applicant was also asked if the driveway depression collects any water and if the fill disperses the water into other places that are not authorized. Mr. Smith stated that option will be reviewed as part of the grading plan approval; it’s not part of this approval. The area does drain toward the wetlands according to topography, it is a depression but it slopes from the high side of the lot to the lower side of the lot and it currently drains towards the wetlands. We will fill the depression up to two feet; it is not a big depression.

The meeting was opened to the public for questions or comments of the additional testimony provided. No one appeared to be heard.

Ms. Murphy stated that the width of proposed lot 14.01 is approximately 242 feet notwithstanding the fact that the portion that abuts the cul de sac is less than that, what we are talking about is a potential variance just on the portion of the lot width that abuts the cul de sac not the entire width of the lot. From that perspective it doesn’t make sense to pursue a paper cul de sac addition because the lot itself is actually much bigger than the portion that we have been talking about which abuts to the cul de sac. Also it appears to her that the best access is from Peach Tree because of the way the lot is setup.

Ms. Murphy moved, seconded by Mr. Loughman that approval be granted to the application of Louise Stryker Estate thereby permitting the minor subdivision to create one additional lot as per sheet A-3 on Block 6902, Lot 14 with conditions stipulated and that the Board Attorney be authorized to prepare a formal resolution memorializing action taken by the Board, same to be presented for consideration at the July 16, 2018 meeting of the Board.

Roll Call (voting members)

Mr. Romano YES

Mr. Goldberg YES

Mr. Kaar YES

Ms. Murphy YES

Mr. Loughman YES

Mr. Mancuso YES

Mr. Vintschger YES

7 Ayes 0 Nays 0 Abstain, application approved.

Other Matters – None to be heard.

With no further business for consideration by the Township of Morris Planning Board, on motion duly made seconded and unanimously carried the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 P.M.

https://www.morristwp.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_06182018-900