Sandyston Township Planning Board

MINUTES SANDYSTON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 3, 2009

This meeting has been duly advertised and meets all requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act.

Mr. Utter welcomed to the board the new member, Rajesh Sinha

Present: John DeJager Absent: Fred MacDonald George Harper Marc Cunico Lou Cherepy Mike Milligan Ron Green Ed Ibsen Rajesh Sinha Joe Pinzone Keith Utter

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The July 6, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes were reviewed. A Motion was made by Mr. Cherepy and seconded by Mr. Green to approve the July 6, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes. All were in favor, except Mr. Harper and Mr. Sinha, who abstained. The Motion was carried.

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS:

A Motion was made by Mr. Pinzone and seconded by Mr. DeJager to approve the following vouchers for payment:

Harold E. Pellow & Assoc. Inv. 49672 06/25/09 (Green – Subdivision) $ 155.00

Harold E. Pellow & Assoc. Inv. 49670 06/25/09 (Brexville – Subdivision) $ 31.00

Harold E. Pellow & Assoc. Inv. 49669 06/25/09 (Nature Conservancy - Subdivision $ 184.85

Harold E. Pellow & Assoc. Inv. 49664 06/25/09 (General Administration - June) $ 199.54

Harold E. Pellow & Assoc. Inv. 49671 06/25/09 (COAH) $ 926.97

Harold E. Pellow & Assoc. Inv. 49667 06/25/09 (Plan Endorsement) $ 252.81

Harold E. Pellow & Assoc. Inv. 49668 06/25/09 (COAH) $ 196.63 Roll Call: Mr. DeJager, yes; Mr. Harper, yes; Mr. Cherepy, yes; Mr. Green, yes; Mr. Ibsen, yes; Mr. Sinha, yes; Mr. Pinzone, yes; and Mr. Utter, yes. The Motion was carried.

CORRESPONDENCE:

The following correspondence was reviewed and no formal action was taken:

1. Letter dated June 30, 2009 from New Jersey Society of Municipal Engineers regarding the Awards Program MINUTES – Page 2 August 3, 2009 Planning Board

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Walt Myers – “C” Variance – Block 1604, Lot 1 - #04/2009:

Mr. Pinzone stepped down from this application.

Appearing before the board was the applicant, Walt Myers, and his wife, Darice Myers. Mr. and Mrs. Myers were sworn in by the board attorney.

Mr. Myers indicated that he was before the board to seek a variance for the rear yard setback requirement to put up a deck. He further indicated that they live in the Kittatiny Lake Community and their house is uniquely positioned between Woods Road and Lake Shore Trail. The current deck is too small and they would like to enlarge it. Mrs. Myers indicated that increasing the size of the deck does not impede anyone’s view of the lake. They would like to increase the width of the deck to 14’. The length of the deck will stay the same which is 26’. The addition to the deck would be approximately 15’ from the road and the Railroad Tie Wall. Mr. Harper questioned if there would be any disturbance or change to the Railroad Tie Wall. Mr. Myers indicated that they do not intend to change the wall. Mr. Cherepy questioned if they are planning to install a roof over the deck. Mr. Myers indicated that they do not intend to put a roof on at this time. Mr. Cherepy indicated that he was concerned with a roof over the deck because of the runoff because they are so close to the road

The board had a discussion with regard to the distance from the edge of the deck to the edge of the property line. It was not clear as to the exact measurement. The applicant indicated that it was approximately 15’. The board felt that the approval should be no more than 14’ from the house since they did not have an exact measurement from the edge of the deck to the rear property line.

This matter was opened to the public. There was no public participation. This matter was closed to the public.

A Motion was made by Mr. Harper and seconded by Mr. Green to approve the “C” Variance request of the applicant and that the deck to be no more than 14’ from the house and 26’ long. Roll Call: Mr. DeJager, yes; Mr. Harper, yes; Mr. Cherepy, yes; Mr. Green, yes; Mr. Ibsen, yes; Mr. Sinha, yes; and Mr. Utter, yes. The Motion was carried.

Mr. Pinzone returned to the meeting.

Robert & Jacqueline Greene – Minor Subdivision & Variance – Block 1204, Lot 15.01, 15.02 & 15.03 - #03/2009:

Appearing before the board was Joseph Greenaway, the applicant’s surveyor, and Howard Bach, the applicant’s engineer. Mr. Greenaway and Mr. Bach were sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Greenaway and Mr. Bach gave their qualifications to the board and were accepted as expert witnesses.

Mr. Greenaway indicated that he was before the board for a minor subdivision and variances for the Greene family for Block 1204, Lot 15.02. The end result of the subdivision is 4 lots and 4 lots already exist on the sites. As part of the new subdivision, there will be a flag lot in the rear of the property. At the present time they are proposing a 50’ flag so the re-distribution of the property from the estate will not require any bulk variances for the new lot or any of the existing lots. However, there would be variances created on existing Lot 15.02 because there were some existing buildings on the original lot 15, which will now be in the front yard of lot 15.02. All the lots will be served by a common driveway which exists but will be extended to the rear for access to the new lot. He further indicated that as a result of this subdivision, Lots 15.02 and 15.04 there will be MINUTES – Page 3 August 3, 2009 Planning Board

PUBLIC HEARINGS CONT.

Robert & Jacqueline Greene – Minor Subdivision & Variance – Block 1204, Lot 15.01, 15.02 & 15.03 - #03/2009 cont.: no further subdivision of these lots. Mr. Cherepy questioned if they will be using the stem of the flag lot for access to the new lot in the rear. Mr. Greenaway indicated that they will not because of the topography which will not warrant it. He indicated that the existing common driveway from 206 will access the new lot. He stated that there is a dirt road that currently exists where they can extend the common driveway for access to the new lot in the rear. They are intending to create a 50’ wide right-of-way easement over this existing common driveway. Mr. Utter indicated that the map indicates a 30’ easement. Mr. Greenway indicated that the beginning portion from 206’ is 50’, but when the easement reaches the rear lot, proposed lot 15.04, it will become a single driveway of 30’.

Mr. Greenaway indicated that Lot 15.01 represents the original Lot 15 which is part of the estate that has to be divided. Lot 15.01 is to the south of the property and they are extending it straight out to Route 206. Lot 15.03 will also be extended to Route 206. Lot 15.02 will have a piece in the rear to be subdivided which is proposed lot 15.04. He further indicated that there is an existing shed on Lot 15.02 which is in the Flag area which they are requesting to leave at the present time until such time someone from proposed lot 15.04 wants to use the flag, at which time the shed can be removed.

Mr. Simmons reviewed his report dated July 22, 2009 with the board:

The applicant is proposing to subdivide existing Tax Lot 15 as follows:

a. Annex a 2.9235-acre portion of Lot 15 to existing Lot 15.01 b. Annex a 4.4153-acre portion of Lot 15 to existing Lot 15.02 c. Annex a 2.0875-acre portion of Lot 15 to existing Lot 15.03.

In addition the applicant is proposing to re-subdivide Lot 15.02 to create a new flag lot shown as Lot 15.04 consisting of 6.59 acres, and a reduced Lot 15.02 at 6.6579 acres. The subject properties are located in the “D” Zone (Medium Mountain Residential).

Paragraph “2a”: The existing access to existing Lots 15.01, 15.02 and 15.03 is by a single access point off of Route 206 that serves as a common driveway. This condition exists today.

Paragraph “2b”: All four of the proposed reconfigured lots meet the bulk zoning requirements of the “D”-Medium Mountain Residential Zone, with the exceptions of various accessory structures, as noted in the comments on each of the individual lots, as applicable.

Paragraph “2c”: While all of the reconfigured lots have frontage on Route 206, the access for all the lots is still by the existing single Route 206 access point.

There is an existing 40-foot wide right-of-way easement shown on the subdivision plat, but the existing traveled way is not located entirely in the easement.

The plat shows a new right-of-way easement with variable widths that follows the existing driveway. A new easement has to be dedicated for this arrangement.

Paragraph “2d”: There are portions of existing right-of-way easement on existing Lots 15, 15.01, and 15.02 that will have to be vacated. MINUTES – Page 4 August 3, 2009 Planning Board

Robert & Jacqueline Greene – Minor Subdivision & Variance – Block 1204, Lot 15.01, 15.02 & 15.03 - #03/2009 cont.:

Paragraph “2e”: The plans call for widening sections of the existing common driveway to 18’ wide, and extending the proposed driveway from the existing dwelling on Lot 15.02 to the proposed dwelling on Lot 15.04 at 10 feet wide.

The timing of the driveway widening and extension work must be worked out. Since the proposed dwelling on Lot 15.04 will require heavy trucks and equipment to travel essentially the entire length of the driveway, it will be best to wait for the new dwelling to be completed before finalizing the driveway widening and resurfacing work. Mr. Gavan questioned Mr. Greenaway as to how many dwellings currently existing on these lots. Mr. Greenaway indicated that at the present time there is only one dwelling.

Paragraph “2f”: A maintenance and repair agreement will be needed for all four lots with regards to the common driveway.

Paragraph “2g”: The existing aerial utility lines run basically along the common driveway up to the existing dwelling on Lot 15.02.

Note #12 indicates that the utility lines to serve dwellings on Lots 15.01, 15.03 and 15.04 will branch/extend off of the existing utility lines. Appropriate easements to allow this to be provided. Mr. Bach indicated that the utilities for Lots 15.01, 15.03 & 15.04 can be taken from the current pole and through the proposed driveway easement so he feels that no additional easement will be necessary at this time.

Paragraph “2h i”: Based on the existing horizontal and vertical alignment observed on site, there will have to be some tree clearing/trimming to provide at least 14 feet of vertical clearance for fire trucks and emergency equipment to gain access to all the lots. The applicant’s agreed.

Paragraph “2h ii”: There are some sharper curves in the driveway alignment that will be difficult for larger emergency vehicles to negotiate. Additional curve widening is needed to make sure the emergency vehicles can navigate the corners safely. The applicant’s agreed.

Paragraph “2h iii”: There is a steep drop-off on the easterly side of the existing driveway near easement Course L5. Guiderail should be placed in this location to help protect vehicles traveling east on the driveway towards this section. The applicant’s agreed.

Paragraph “3a”: Lot 15.01. There is a section of existing dirt driveway that meanders from Lot 15.02 onto Lot 15.01, and then back onto Lot 15.04. A note on Lot 15.01 indicates that the section of driveway on Lot 15.01 will only be used by Lot 15.01.

Paragraph “4a”: Lot 15.02. With the merging of a portion of Lot 15, there are now two sheds and a frame building in the front yard of the dwelling on Lot 15.02, which will require a variance from Section 150-10B, which prohibits accessory buildings in the front yard. Mr. Simmons indicated that this is an existing condition.

Paragraph “4b”: Lot 15.02. With the revised lot lines between Lots 15.01 and 15.02, the existing frame shed is now only 4.0 feet off the proposed sideline, and 20 feet is required in the R-D Zone. A variance is required from the Section 150-8. Mr. Simmons indicated that this is an existing condition. MINUTES – Page 5 August 3, 2009 Planning Board

Robert & Jacqueline Greene – Minor Subdivision & Variance – Block 1204, Lot 15.01, 15.02 & 15.03 - #03/2009 cont.:

Paragraph “5a”: Lot 15.03. There is an existing frame cabin, two sheds, a frame shelter, and a privy on this lot, which are existing conditions.

Paragraph “5b”: Lot 15.03. There is a dirt driveway shown on the plat that cuts across Lot 15.03 and runs into adjacent Tax Lot 1, owned by NJDEP Fish & Game Commission. Does the State have any rights to cross the subject properties to reach Tax Lot 1. Mr. Bach indicated that the state does not have any rights. The driveway has been abandoned and there is nothing in his deed search as far as rights to the state for access to this area.

Paragraph “6a”: Lot 15.04. There is an existing shed in the 50-foot wide stem leading to Route 206 that will require a variance from Section 150-10B (no accessory buildings in the front yard) if it is not removed. The applicant to advise the Board if the shed is proposed to remain. Mr. Greenaway indicated that there is a shed in the flag area which violates the side yard setback as well as being in the center of the flag line. They are not proposing to use this access and would request that the shed stay where it is.

Paragraph “6b”: Lot 15.04. I note the shed is also approximately 6 feet +/- from the side line, and 20 feet minimum is required for accessory structures, per Section 150-8.

Paragraph “6c”: Lot 15.04. Section 150-28C.(4)(f) prohibits a flag lot access strip from being used as access to any other lot or tract of land, unless a road is constructed. A portion of the common driveway leading to all four lots crosses the access strip, and the driveway to Lot 15.03 will cross the access strip also.

Paragraph “6d”: Lot 15.04. It is not clear if there are wetlands located near the most southerly corner of Lot 15.04 and how far up onto Lot 15.04 the transition area will come. This should be investigated by the applicant and any portion of the building envelope in the transition area eliminated. Mr. Greenaway indicated that the DEP Maps show no wetlands in the area. He further indicated that there may be some wetlands in the southerly corner of the lot. If there were wetlands, there would be a 150’ buffer area. Therefore, they are proposing the house to be 150’ of the rear yard setback in order to avoid an issue with this possible wetland area. He further indicated that the rear of the property it is 75’ in elevation.

Paragraph “7”: Approvals are required from the following:

a. Sussex County Planning Board – Subdivision b. NJDOT – access permit c. Sussex County Health Department – well and septic system d. Sandyston Township Tax Assessor – Lot numbers e. Sandyston Township Fire Department – Access.

Paragraph “8”: Howard Bach, III, P.E. to sign the soil log certification box on Sheets 1 and 2 of the plans. Mr. Bach indicated that he has certified them on his map. The soil logs were taken off of Mr. Greenway’s map.

A lengthy discussion was held with regard to the existing shed which will be physically on proposed Lot 15.04 in the flag area which shed is 10’ x 30’. There was also a lengthy discussion held with regard to the creation of the flag lot even though there was testimony given that they will not use the flag access because of the topography.

Appearing before the board was Jacqueline Greene, the applicant. Ms. Greene was sworn in by the board attorney. Mr. Cherepy questioned Ms. Greene as to the use of the small MINUTES – Page 6 August 3, 2009 Planning Board

Robert & Jacqueline Greene – Minor Subdivision & Variance – Block 1204, Lot 15.01, 15.02 & 15.03 - #03/2009 cont.: cottage which is on the property. Ms. Greene indicated that it is a summer cottage which was built in 1930’s. There is no heat, septic or water in this cottage. They would like to keep the cottage on the property.

This matter was opened to the public. There was no public participation. This matter was closed to the public.

A lengthy discussion was held with regard to the construction of the driveway and tree trimming, etc. Mr. Bach requested that there be a condition that the construction of the driveway to Lot 15.04 be done prior to the c/o being issued through the building department. Mr. Gavan indicated that all lots will have a maintenance agreement with regard to the construction and maintenance of the driveway which is to be signed by all 4 lot owners prior to the signing of the deeds.

A Motion was made by Mr. Harper and seconded by Mr. Pinzone to approve the Minor Subdivision with the following variances and conditions: 1) Dividing approximately 40 acres into 4 lots as it is today, but in different configurations; 2) Lot 15.02 is not to be further subdivided; 3) Existing 40’ Wide Right-of-Way to be abandoned and a new right- of-way easement to be provided; 4) Driveway Maintenance and Development Agreement for construction and maintenance of common driveway to be signed by all 4 lot owners. Also utility easements to be included in this agreement; 5) Variance for Lot 15.02 for accessory structure (non-occupant) in front yard setback; 6) Variance for 10’ x 30’ Shed to remain on Lot 15.04; 7) Design waivers from section 150:28(c)(4)(f) of the township ordinances with regard to the uses of flag lots; 8) Setback for rear on Lot 15.04 to be 150’; 9) variance approvals from different agencies as outlined in Mr. Simmons’ report dated July 22, 2009; 10) An as-built to be submitted to the board engineer of the new driveway to assure that the driveway is constructed in the new easement as provided prior to a c/o. Roll Call: Mr. DeJager, yes; Mr. Harper, yes; Mr. Cherepy, yes; Mr. Green, yes; Mr. Ibsen, yes; Mr. Sinha, yes; Mr. Pinzone, yes; and Mr. Utter, yes. The Motion was carried

OTHER BUSINESS

Commercial Vehicles parked on Residential Lots:

Mr. Paterson indicated that there has been a complaint with regard to commercial vehicles parked in the residential zone. He indicated that we do not have an ordinance allowing this in the ordinance book which he researched. He sent several ordinances from other townships which puts a maximum weight limit on commercial vehicles which are allowed in residential zones. A discussion was held with regard to diesel trucks, which Mr. Paterson indicated that this can be dealt with through other ordinances for public health and safety. The complaint that was received was in a private community and it was suggested that when a complaint is received for this situation, they should be directed to come to the Planning Board or Township Committee to discuss the situation. The second complaint that was received was from an anonymous person and it was stated that this person should also come to the Planning Board or the Township Committee with their concerns.

Code Enforcement Report – January 2009 – June 2009:

The January – June 2009 Code Enforcement Report was reviewed. No formal action was taken. MINUTES – Page 7 August 3, 2009 Planning Board

OTHER BUSINESS CONT.

New Application & Checklist for Planning Board (Ordinance):

The board secretary submitted to the board a sample of a Uniformed Application and Checklist and supporting documents for submission of an application to the Sandyston

Township Planning Board. An Ordinance to adopt the new application and checklist was reviewed by the board.

A Motion was made by Mr. Cherepy and seconded by Mr. DeJager to approve the new application and checklist ordinance, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof and to forward same to the township committee for review and adoption. Mr. DeJager, yes; Mr. Harper, yes; Mr. Cherepy, yes; Mr. Green, yes; Mr. Ibsen, yes; Mr. Sinha, yes; Mr. Pinzone, yes; and Mr. Utter, yes. The Motion was carried.

Wind Energy:

Sample Ordinances for Wind Energy were reviewed by the board. It was agreed to table this matter until the next regular Planning Board Meeting.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

This meeting was opened to the public. There was no public participation. This meeting was closed to the public.

ADJOURNMENT:

As there was no further business before the Board, a Motion was made by Mr. Pinzone and seconded by Mr. Cherepy to adjourn the meeting. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon M. Yarosz Land Use Administrator