September 12, 2012 Minutes1
TOWNSHIP OF DENVILLE
PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
September 12, 2012
The Planning Board of the Township of Denville held its regularmeeting on Wednesday, September 12, 2012. The meeting was held at the Township Municipal Building, 1 Saint Mary’s Place and commenced at 7:30 P.M. Chairperson Maffei presided.
Secretary Probasco read Notice of Public Meeting.
Roll Call:Present –Chr. Louis Maffei, Marilyn Kuntz, Gene Fitzpatrick, Sue Filauro, Mark London, Kurt Schmitt
Absent –Mayor Thomas Andes, Peter Nienstadt, Glenn Buie
Professionals present – Tiena Cofoni, Esq., William Denzler, PP, John Ruschke, PP
MINUTES
June 13, 2012
Motion to adopt the meeting minutes as submittedwas made by Mbr. Kuntz, seconded by Mbr.Fitzpatrickand unanimously approved by all members able to vote.
August 8, 2012
Motion to adopt the meeting minutes as submitted was made by Mbr. Kuntz, seconded by Mbr. Fitzpatrickand unanimously approved by all members able to vote.
PURCHASING
Motion to pay vouchers submitted by The Buzak Law Group (dated August 2 and September 4, 2012) subject to the availability of funds, was made by Mbr. Fitzpatrick, seconded by Mbr. Londonand unanimously approved by all Members present and able to vote.
Motion to pay vouchers submitted by William Denzler and Associates (dated September 4, 2012) subject to the availability of funds, was made by Mbr. Kuntz, seconded by Mbr. Londonand unanimously approved by all Members present and able to vote.
Motion to pay vouchers submitted by Hatch Mott MacDonald (dated July 24, August 17 and August 28, 2012) subject to the availability of funds, was made by Mbr. Kuntz, seconded by Mbr. Londonand unanimously approved by all Members present and able to vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
APSP/FSP 12-03:29 East Shore Road, LLC
Block 40901, Lot 1692
121 East Shore Road
The public hearing for this application was originally carried from the June 13, 2012 public hearingto August 8th and then to the September 12th meeting. Both adjournments were without further legal notice. Tiena Cofoni, Esq. confirmed that the legal notice was sufficient for the added variance.
Frederick Roughgarden, Esq. (350 Lafayette Avenue, Hawthorne) represented the applicant, 29 East Shore Road, LLC. Applicant is requesting amendment of the conditions of the minor subdivision approval detailed May 10, 2006 resolution along with a variance from the Township’s zero net fill requirements.
Kent Rigg, PE (24Yogland Avenue, Midland Park) was present, sworn under oath and accepted by the board as an expert witness. Mr. Rigg will be providing expert testimony as engineer, planner and land surveyor.
A colorized version of the site plan (Exhibit A-1) was entered. Mr. Rigg provided an overview of the test pit location which indicated that the water table was at least 18” below grade for extended periods. Soil type of dense black clay. Based upon onsite observations, the structure appears to have been built to meet the bulk requirements of the resolution. Stating that there are times when a seepage pit will not work due to when the water being above grade. Existing seepage pits 8’ below grade with gravel 3.5’ below the wake level. Stating that there would be portions of the seepage pit that would fill up once with water and never work again. The intent was to create a more shallow infiltration system that would be functioning more often. The current paved macadam driveway onsite is proposed to be replaced with a pervious asphalt surface. Stating it is a better solution, accomplish the same infiltration but will hold up better over time. Mr. Rigg discussed the flood ways on the structure, the porch and the structure as it is built. As a condition of NJDEP permit, flood vents are to be no more than 12” above exterior grade. There are nine flood vents on site. Five conform. Due to settlement of soil, four are 13-15” above grade which are 1-3” above the 12” requirement. Mr. Roughgarden stated that the applicant obtained permits without the benefit of having an approved resolution or site plan. As it relates to the crawl space elevation, Mr. Rigg stated that there are some minor changes in grade. Stating that there is a decrease in flood storage at this point and that the net fill increase was a result of the house construction. Based upon the calculations there is a decrease of 118 cubic yards of flood storage on the site. This 16.8% is within the NJDEP requirements of under 20% but over the township’s requirements of zero net fill. The decrease is equivalent to 1/10,000th of the total flood storage on the lake. While negligible, this requires relief from the zero net fill requirements and why the application has been amended to include this variance. Mr. Rigg stated that there would be no negative impact to the zoning code or master plan of Denville. The concrete slab in the crawl space is alittle higher than it should be. No negative impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Rigg stated that this application falls under the 2008 Permit Extension Act, which was modified in 2010. Stating that the permit is valid until December 31, 2012 or June 30, 2013 depending on the category. Based upon the plan, Mr. Rigg stated that the changes were a reasonable and well thought solution to resolve the onsite conditions. Stated there were no run-off problems from the site. Cannot disturb the area within 25 ft of the lake in the rear, net fill issue would have to be addressed.
Total of 118 cubic yards would have to be removed from the site. Stating this would create an eyesore for the surrounding neighborhood to remove 6 dump truck loads of soil from the site.
Frank Mariconda (316 Palmer Road) was previously sworn and remained under oath. Mr. Mariconda testified to being the developer of the site and home that was constructed. Mr. Mariconda spoke to being unawareof the conditions and having only received a legal sized copy of a portion of the entire site plan drawing. Mr. Mariconda was aware of the seepage pits but was not aware that the home was above grade. Stating that the slab was poured prior to the grading being completed. The applicant agreed to comply with the driveway changes and a septic system that does not include seepage pits.
Chr. Maffei opened to the professionals for comments.
John Ruschke, PEwas pleased that the applicant was agreeing to dry wells and did not take exception to the proposed improvements. Impervious pavement is recognized under best management practices and concurred with the applicant’s engineer. Referenced the flood vent requirements from FEMA and NJDEP were based upon hydraulic loading on the foundation to avoid foundation damage during a flood. Using additional fill to mitigate the flood vent height is not acceptable and disagrees with this method to mitigate. Flood vents can be easily addressed by having a mason lower the vents. No net fill has a cumulative effect and did not agree with applicant’s testimony. It is not just the subject property as it relates to the ordinance. Voiced disappointment that the applicant did not propose removing 6-12” of soil to mitigate from the beginning. Appreciates ripping out the crawl space as a larger hardship than the spot elevations and grading of the site. Mr. Ruschke referenced being part of the Highlands Planning Area and questioned whether the Permit Extension Act would apply as it relates to the Stream Encroachment.
Bill Denzler inquired about required maintenance for the poured asphalt driveway to maintain the porosity. Mr. Rigg responded that four times annually the homeowner would be required to vacuum and wash down the driveway. Applicant agreed to this as a condition of approval. Agreed with the township engineer regarding zero net fill and agreed that there are locations on the site that could have fill removed. De minimis exceptions add up over time to a cumulative effect. Slight fill reduction would reduce the overall.
The applicant’s attorney asked Mr. Rigg to address the fill reduction issue. Inquired about alternate storm water management on site and if spots can be reduced that wouldn’t have an effect on the new system. Kent Rigg, PE replied that there are some spots by creating swales around the system and around the house. Removing some fill and regarding will help but will not completely eliminate the variance for zero net fill.
Chr. Maffei opened to the public and seeing none, closed the public portion.
Chr. Maffei opened to the board members.
Mbr. London inquired about the NJDEP permit. Kent Rigg responded that the there are two categories of the Permit Extension Act one ends December 2012 and the other June 2013. Mbr. London referenced ‘Acceptance of Permit’ language on the permit that indicates work should not be started if you cannot comply with all the requirements. Mr. Mariconda stated that he was not advised by the building department that there was a resolution to comply with. These conditions were brought to his attention during the inspection process when he went for his Certificate of Occupancy. Applicant was prepared to comply with the standard seepage pits until he realized that the site conditions would not allow for these to be installed as designed. Fred Roughgarden, Esq. stated that his client had no intent to circumvent the requirements of the Township of Denville when he built the home. The applicant confirmed to Mbr. London that the necessary inspections were obtained. Mr. Mariconda stated that Sal Poli visited the property early on, prior to the footing inspections which resulted in field modifications. For the record, Tiena Cofoni, Esq. asked the applicant if he originally intended to fully comply and that the field changes resulted in his non-compliance. Mr. Mariconda responded no. The applicant’s attorney agreed that they were not implying that the non-compliance was a result of the field changes. The applicant agreed that he would be willing to modify the grading based upon the recommendations of the board engineer. The board attorney asked if it was possible for the applicant to provide the information to the board to reflect the grading changes that would be made. The Township Engineer stated that it was possible for them to provided calculations using the existing topography and the proposed grading. Further stating that he would not be opposed to the applicant lowering the grade of the dry wells based upon the 5’8” elevation. Ultimately lowering the grade in the front yard by 1’. Mbr. London inquired what will prevent the homeowner from sealcoating their driveway. Tiena Cofoni, Esq. referenced a deed notice. A notice in the deed that advised there are maintenance requirements for the driveway and seepage pits. Fred Roughgarden, Esq. stated that the deed notice would be different than a deed restriction.
Mr. Kuntz inquired about purchasing the property from Bill Murray. Mr. Mariconda testified that there wasn’t much time to submit before the permit to build expired and that he didn’t have all the information and did not ask the right questions. Mbr. Kuntz voiced being blown away by the resolution conditions not being met and the applicant asking for forgiveness. Mbr. Kuntz commented that the porch should be removed and built as indicated on the plans.
Moving forward, Chr. Maffei asked the board to focus on how the applicant can resolve this.
Mbr. Filauro commented on the seepage pits. Mr. Mariconda stated the seepage pits were on the plans. Mbr. Filauro voiced concern that a detailed resolution was not followed. The applicant stated that they were aware a resolution existed but were not aware of the level of degree of conditions that it contained. Mbr. Filauro referenced the flood vents and inquired about changing the size. Mr. Ruschke was comfortable that the size of the proposed vents was sufficient. Mr. Rigg stated that his first visit to the site was in July.
Mbr. Schmitt inquired about the flood vents. Mr. Rigg, PE confirmed that the vents were standard and that there were two flood vents in the garage. Mbr. Schmitt commented on the flood vents needing to meet the load on the foundation and inquired about the landscaping. Stating that the circumference of the trees onsite were smaller than what was on the plans. The applicant stated that the species were correct and that the trees were provided by the landscaper.
Mbr. Fitzpatrick asked the board engineer if he would be satisfied with the changes to the flood vents, driveway and grading being addressed. Mbr. Fitzpatrick also asked the township engineer’s opinion regarding the porch being corrected. Mr. Ruschke provided his comments, referenced the deed and future enforcement of the pavers, reserving comment on the porch. Stating that the porch will be easier to discuss once the applicant provides calculations and a percentage has been determined.
Mbr. Maffei inquired about maintenance of the seepage pits. Mr. Rigg indicated that the seepage pits are relatively shallow at 12” below the surface and possibly less. They do not last forever. Mbr. Maffei’s questions had been answered. Commenting on the higher level of proof required now due to the recent Hurricane events.
Mbr. Filauro inquired about the concrete apron in front of the garage. Frank Mariconda stated that a drain leads to a small underground gravel pit and this was added due to the pitch of the garage.
Chr. Maffei asked if there were other comments from the board members. There were none.
Mr. Rigg confirmed that the regarding could only be performed in the front and side yards. Tiena Cofoni, Esq. stated that the board is seeking a lot grading plan that will show the percentage of net fill calculations. Mr. Rigg anticipated that the calculations would be approximately 50% of what is currently proposed.
Tiena Cofoni, Esq. referenced the next meeting date of October 10th. Fred Roughgarden, Esq. confirmed that they would be ready for the October 10th meeting. Mbr. Fitzpatrick asked if there was a percentage the board was seeking. John Ruschke, PE stated it’s the board is seeking a reduction of the net fill requirement tothe maximum extent possible. Tiena Cofoni, Esq. confirmed that the public hearing for this application would be carried to October 10, 2012 without further notice.
OLD BUSINESS
Mbr. Fitzpatrick urged the board members to make a list of enforcement items that have not followed board recommendations during construction that were approved or denied. Stating that these items should be sent to the business administrator and mayor to raise the level of awareness. Mbr. Fitzpatrick stated that he could include any comments sent to him in his Liaison report. The board attorney advised that no reference should be made on any pending applications. John Ruschke, PE referenced that it is ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to comply with the conditions of the resolution. The bills from the board professionals can be challenged if not reasonable. There is a limit under the MLUL with what can be charged based upon the size of the project. Bill Denzler, PP stated that zoning violations receive a notice. If it is not corrected, a summons is issued through the municipal court system. The building department has their own set of fines that can be imposed. There was general discussion regarding files, property information, history and OPRA requests.
Mbr. Fitzpatrick strongly recommended that the planning board bring the seepage pits and pervious driveway maintenance requirements (i.e. deed notice) to the council’s attention for the newly subcommittee meetings for the new property maintenance ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn.
Denean Probasco, Board SecretaryDate Approved: December 12, 2012