Planning Board Meeting s4

PLANNING BOARD MEETING – APRIL 19, 2006

Adequate notice of the meeting has been posted and published as required by law. The meeting will start at 7:30 PM and adjourn at 11:00 PM.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT Mr. Conte, Mayor Donch, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Gostkowski, Mr. Lauber, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Vierheilig

ABSENT Mr. Bohrer, Mr. Cobuzio

Kevin Tichacek, Boswell Engineering John Spizziri, Planning Board Attorney

Mr. Conte stated that the first fifteen minutes would be for Board Discussion. He asked Mr. Tichacek to report on the follow up items.

Mr. Tichacek reported on these items. The homeowner has been notified about the silt fence and dirt piled against trees at Huckleberry and Peachtree. He has addressed this.

This is taken off the agenda.

Mr. Tichacek stated that the final macadam for Saber Drive was part on an old subdivision. The final top course never went in. There is no escrow or bonding monies. Kevin Boswell has been speaking with the developer trying to get him to do this final paving.

The Board asked, “How did the bond get released?”

Mr. Tichacek did not know.

The Clerk has spoken with Sally Bleeker. She informed me that she does not have a performance bond or maintenance bond on that project. There are no monies available. Exactly what happened she did not know. Mr. Boswell is in the process of writing a letter to Mr. Muscara to get him to do this paving at his expense.

Mr. Conte stated that the bond guarantees the performance of the contractor. He suggested that this be pursued legally.

Mr. Spizziri stated that this would be up to the Mayor and Council.

Mr. Tichacek suggested that the Board wait to see if this can be resolved by Mr. Boswell and Mr. Muscara.

This will be left on the agenda for the next meeting.

Mr. Lauber stated that they probably waited for the houses to be built and then that did not happen. Mr. Tichacek stated that at 723 Oak Lane a 13” tree was cut down in the buffer. The owner had been notified that tree replacement will be required. He will comply with this. The silt fence on Oak Haven has been repaired. This was for a pool application.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4-19-06 PAGE 2

Mr. Conte noticed when the Board went on the field trip to 200 Pulis Avenue that a PVC pipe was emptying into a gully. Did we allow it that way or was it to go into the ground?

Mr. Tichacek will check this.

This will be left on the agenda for the next meeting.

Mr. Tichacek stated that the property owner on Orchard is doing landscaping, final grading and installing a sprinkler system. He will sod the property this Friday, April 21, 2006.

This will be taken off the agenda.

Mr. Conte stated that another property was added to the potential properties that will require drainage systems as part of their development.

The Clerk informed the Board that when she sees some large properties during the course of reviewing the tax map it will be made part of the list.

Mr. Spizziri gave the Board a response to Mr. Smith’s letter dated April 12, 2006 regarding stormwater management. The municipality would have to have some sort of ordinance to request the cost from the property owners for stormwater facilities or to assess the developer for a future cost and put the money in escrow for maintenance. In the Talcott Fromkin Freehold Associates v. Freehold Township case it was $83,000.00. He asked Mr. Smith to withhold any acts by the Mayor and Council until the Board has rendered its opinion. He suggested that a homeowner’s association be established by ordinance and this would be the vehicle by which the municipality can forward bills for the maintenance of these facilities. The homeowner’s association would pay it. The municipality can establish by means of a tax lien against the particular lots to guaranty the payment. If payment were not made, a tax lien can be placed on the properties. The Borough Attorney and the Mayor and Council can work this out.

Mr. Lauber felt that the Board needs the answer as to how many properties are left in town that will require drainage systems as part of their development.

Mr. Conte asked Mr. Spizziri, “Would it be possible to go retroactive?”

Mr. Spizziri stated, “No”.

Mr. Conte asked, “Is it possible to continue to add to this list?” Mr. Lauber suggested that the engineer should tell the Board where they think there are properties in town that would require these facilities.

Mr. Conte felt that this has to be done.

Mr. Pullaro stated that all drainage requires maintenance of some kind. The Borough does that but this requires more. He asked when the subdivision comes in is there a way for the developer to set up some kind of fund so that maintenance is taken care of. This could be a long-term maintenance bond.

Mr. Spizziri stated that there has to be an ordinance to authorize the Borough to require the developer to contribute to the cost of maintenance of the drainage facility.

Mr. Conte stated that this could be funded with some kind of annuity.

Mr. Lauber stated that this brings up the question as to who is going to do it. This should be in the hands of the Borough since the Borough is ultimately responsible for it.

Mr. Conte stated that we need to know what it will cost to maintain it.

Mr. Roberts asked, “Is there any idea as to how often these facilities need to be cleaned?”

Mr. Spizziri stated that this question would need to be answered by the engineer. The engineer can assess the undeveloped land in the Borough and make a determination as to what would be required with respect to drainage. An ordinance can be drafted to have the developer of a subdivision post a cash contribution to maintain drainage facilities based on our engineer’s determination of the cost required for this maintenance over a period of time. The Board should make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council.

Mr. Pullaro stated that the increased cost for these drainage systems needs to be addressed. What is the difference between normal maintenance of a drainage system and the maintenance of a sand filter?

Mr. Tichacek can find out what the difference is. He asked if the Board would like a proposal from Boswell Engineering regarding the cost of maintenance for these systems and how many properties are left in the Borough that will require drainage systems as part of their development. It will take several hours to do this.

Mr. Conte stated that maybe we could get a guess estimate on the house.

Mr. Tichacek would have to do a brief investigation as to how many properties left in the Borough will require this type of system. Mr. Pullaro stated that the engineer should figure what the extra cost of maintenance will be.

Mr. Tichacek stated that if you pass an ordinance, the cost to the developer for the maintenance of a system would depend on what system is used. The cost will be based on the size and the type of method used.

Mr. Spizziri stated that an ordinance can be drafted that says that a developer must make a contribution in lieu of the drainage maintenance based upon the plans they present for approval at the time of subdivision. You do not have to start calculating or paying the engineer at this time. When the application comes before the Board, if we had an ordinance, our engineer will assess the drainage proposed and make a determination as to the cost required for maintenance. As part of the approval process, the developer would be required to post that cash.

Mr. Lauber stated that the Board needs to know how many properties will require drainage facilities as part of their development.

Mr. Friscia stated that the Board also needs to know how much more expensive it will be to maintain these systems.

Mr. Spizziri stated that Barrister Home Construction and Barrett Homes proposed sand filters for their subdivisions. There was discussion during those applications as to the increase in cost.

Mayor Donch stated, “Where does it say that this has to be done on an annual basis”. We clean the stormwater drains. We do not set up a homeowner’s association for this. He would like to know more about it. He did not see this as being a major problem. When the roads are paved, the whole town pays for that. The Council will make a decision as to how this will be handled. He will speak with Brian Peterson and Robert Hoffmann to see what it will take to clean this type of system. We keep the streets clean so that there is not a lot of debris going into the drainage.

Mr. Conte felt that the Borough should have an ordinance in place to deal with the maintenance of the drainage facilities.

Mr. Friscia proposed that the Board gather more information, leave it on for discussion and address this at the next meeting. We need an estimate of lots and an estimate of costs.

Mr. Lauber felt that the Board should start with the lots that may be involved.

Mr. Conte asked, “Is it the Board’s wish that we continue to monitor how many lots we have?”

Mr. Pullaro stated that Boswell should talk to Brian Peterson as the Mayor suggested. Barrister Home Construction and Barrett Homes are in place. They can ask Brian Peterson how much it will cost to maintenance the sand filters over and above a regular drainage system. This information can be brought back to the Board.

Mr. Friscia suggested that the Board get the information as to how many lots we can except will require this type of system.

Mr. Lauber stated that this would be for a five or six lot development. If this were only for two lots, it will not have a complicated system.

Mr. Conte felt that it is important to find out the cost of maintaining this type of system.

Mr. Tichacek will get this information for the Board.

Mr. Conte stated that the property owner on Ewing Avenue is now building his seventh structure. The silt fence is not up. He asked Mr. Tichacek to check this.

Mr. Friscia asked that the issue regarding ringing of trees before the demolition of a structure be on the agenda for the next meeting. We are waiting for feedback from Mr. Burgis on the issue of stories.

Mr. Conte stated that the Board has a letter from Mr. Spizziri on attics, which may be helpful in that discussion.

Mr. Friscia asked that Mr. Burgis be placed on the agenda to follow-up on the issue of stories.

The Clerk will contact Mr. Burgis in this regard.

Mr. Friscia stated that the engineer was going to report to us about the requirements for keeping water on site or not on site as per the new Stormwater Management Regulations. This was discussed during the approval of the property at 305 Sleepy Hollow Lane.

Mr. Conte thought that if there was a ¼ of an acre disturbance the water has to be kept on site.

Mr. Friscia looked for that section in the minutes of April 5, 2006.

Mr. Conte stated that the Clerk was nice each to look up the Rules and Procedures of the Board. At the seminar the Board attended they were informed that they should have By-Laws governing the Planning Board. This will be discussed at the next meeting.

Mr. Friscia referred to Page 9 of the minutes of the April 5, 2006 meeting. “Mr. Lauber asked that Boswell Engineering submit to the Board what is required for the new Stormwater Management Regulations on a ¼ of an acre. This will be for informational purposes.”

Mr. Conte stated that this should be on the agenda for the next meeting.

Mr. Tichacek stated that this is targeted for over an acre of disturbance or an increase of over a ¼ of an acre of impervious coverage. You would then be obliged to adhere to the new stormwater regulations. The regulations are for the requirements of the retention on the site and water quality.

Mr. Conte referred to the letter from Steve Di Flora thanking John Wolf for his work as Chairman of the Board of Adjustment. He referred to Ordinance 1342 Changes to the Impervious Coverage Ordinance. This Ordinance was introduced at the Mayor and Council on March 8, 2006.

The Clerk informed the Board that the Ordinance was adopted on April 12, 2006.

The Mayor asked that the issue regarding lot coverage for the A-22.5 zone in his memo dated April 11, 2006 be discussed at the May 3, 2006 meeting.

The minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006 were presented for approval. A motion to approve the minutes as presented was moved by Mr. Pullaro and seconded by Mr. Lauber. All in favor (aye).

They were APPROVED.

RESOLUTIONS

FLK-2106 MOHTARAM, SITE PLAN/SOIL MOVING PERMIT, VARIANCES, 599 FRANKLIN LAKE ROAD, BLOCK 3304, LOT 1 (DYAD SUBD. – SINGLE- FAMILY PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED UNDER LAKESIDE DEVELOPERS) (3RD HEARING 3-15-06 APPROVED) (2ND HEARING 3-1-06 ) (1ST HEARING 2-1-06)

Mr. Spizziri stated that at the last meeting the Board asked for certain additions to this resolution. That has been done on Page 7, Paragraph 27 in the findings of facts. This information is also included in the conclusions. This resolution was forwarded to Mr. Friscia for his review. A motion to remove this resolution from the table is in order.

Mr. Pullaro asked Mr. Spizziri to outline the portions of the resolution that have been revised. PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4-19-06 PAGE 6

Mr. Spizziri outlined the portions of the resolution that have been revised. He added on Pages 7 and 8, Paragraph 21 the height variance request, relocation of the house, certified architect showing the buffer area facing the neighbor’s property, five cars owned by the applicant two are antiques, they need to be garaged, the garage bays are 75’ from the neighbor’s house facing the westerly property line will have heavy buffering, the other two garage bays would face the street with the view from Franklin Lake Road of only two garage doors, the garages are “L” shaped, the size of the property is 5.3 acres, most of which is subject to wetlands buffer and the slope of the land. This was the basis for the grant of the variances. On Page 9, these same facts are reiterated as previously stated.

The Board was satisfied with these changes.

A motion to remove this resolution from the table was moved by Mayor Donch and seconded by Mr. Roberts. All in favor (aye).

The Clerk informed the Board as to who can vote on this application.

A motion to approve the resolution with the changes that Mr. Spizziri presented was moved by Mr. Pullaro and seconded by Mayor Donch.

ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Conte, Mayor Donch, Mr. Pullaro

It was APPROVED.

FLK-2150 BARRISTER HOME CONSTRUCTION, SITE PLAN/SOIL MOVING PERMIT, 305 SLEEPY HOLLOW LANE, BLOCK 2605, LOT 1.08 (PART OF BARRISTER SUBD.)

Mr. Spizziri summarized the resolution.

Mr. Friscia stated that there is over a ¼ of an acre increase in impervious coverage for this property. The water has to stay on site.

Mr. Tichacek stated that the water is recharged into the ground with seepage pits.

Mr. Lauber stated that the other lots are feed into the drainage system because they were accounted for as part of the subdivision. The other lots have seepage pits also.

Mr. Conte stated that the water from the disturbed portion goes to the seepage pits. This property is used as a vehicle to take the road water to Tannery Pond.

A motion to approve the resolution as presented was moved by Mr. Lauber and seconded by Mayor Donch.

ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Conte, Mayor Donch, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Gostkowski, Mr. Lauber, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Vierheilig PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4-19-06 PAGE 7

It was APPROVED.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

FLK-2059 PAWNEE, LLC/DIMINI, MAJOR SUBDIVISION, 650 PAWNEE LANE, BLOCK 3103.04, LOT 1 (5TH HEARING) (4TH HEARING 3-1-06) (3RD HEARING 2-15-06) (2ND HEARING 1-4-06) (1ST HEARING 12- 7-05)

Mr. Harold Cook, the attorney, Mr. Robert Weissman, the engineer and Mr. Joseph Russo, the objectors’ attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Polner and Mr. & Mrs. Opila were present.

A motion to reopen the Public Hearing for this application was moved by Mr. Lauber and seconded by Mayor Donch. All in favor (aye).

Mr. Cook introduced himself.

Mr. Tichacek distributed the report from Dr. Hormoz Pazwash dated April 19, 2006 regarding the drainage for this property to the Board Members and the applicant’s engineer.

The Board and the applicant took time to review this report.

Mr. Cook stated that this is a continued Public Hearing. We have offered the testimony of four expert witnesses. We are here to address the issue of drainage. We will be coming back for the individual site plan reviews. Mr. Weissman and Ms. Tiberi have spoken about the drainage and the driveway. We had no idea a report would be issued by Boswell Engineering. We can proceed on the subdivision only and address these issues as part of our site plan approval. The issues from Dr. Pazwash’s report have to be tailored to each individual house plan. Mr. Weissman will address the revised plan given to the Board two weeks ago. This plan shows that the drainage will work. If this information cannot be provided at the time of the site plan review, he does not get a building permit. The Board does not want to approve a subdivision that ultimately cannot be built. Our engineer is confident that he can. If the Board were to approve this, we will acknowledge as a condition that site plans have to be approved. If we cannot comply with the engineer’s requirements, we do not get site plan approval or a building permit. The lot then becomes unbuildable. This lot has not been built on because of the severe topography. The cost of land has appreciated so much in Franklin Lakes that now the value of the property is more than the improvement costs. You have to look at the Land Use Law and your Ordinance. This does not come into play because we are conditioning the approval on the site plan applications.

Mr. Lauber stated that this is not a normal subdivision. He did not think that Mr. Weissman has proven that this will work. The water is going down into the rock and we do not know where it is coming out. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Weissman to review the revised plan.

Mr. Weissman introduced himself. The last revision date on the plan is March 27, 2006.

Mr. Spizziri marked the Subdivision Plan last revised March 27, 2006 as Exhibit A-8 for Identification.

Mr. Weissman stated that the lot lines have remained the same. More seepage pits and trench drains in the driveways have been added to accommodate the runoff from the site. Seepage pits have been

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4-19-06 PAGE 8 added on Lot A at the top of the property. There are eight seepage pits per lot. In his opinion, this is more than adequate to accommodate a standard property with this type of impervious area. The lower lot is of more concern to the neighbors and the Board. This lot has been disturbed. There is a lot of shout rock. Test holes have been dug to demonstrate septic suitability. The original owner disturbed and leveled the property. We are at the top of the mountain with steep slopes surrounding us. Seepage pits will be placed in the shout rock areas. The common access to the site is Pawnee Lane. The overflow goes to an existing catch basin on Pawnee Lane. The water will be recharged into the ground.

Mr. Cook stated that some of the concerns of the Board at the last meeting were that you could put the seepage pits in but you could hit rock and the water could come running out. It will not filter into the ground.

Mr. Weissman stated, “Absolutely”. That is what happens today. We will not be changing the drainage pattern that exists. In some instances, the water will find its way down the slope. He showed the portion of the lot that will have additional runoff, which exists today. The drainage pattern cannot be changed. What we are proposing will not make the conditions any better or any worse than they are now. Trench drains will be used for both lots. The drainage conditions on the upper lot will not be changed. On Lot B, this area is more conducive to acceptance of water from seepage pits. We have dug down 12 feet on this lot and have not hit groundwater. There are eight seepage pits for this lot. Drainage calculations have not been done because he does not know the final configuration of the driveway or the house. We will comply with the slope ordinance. The soil types on the mountain area are not conducive to percolation or stormwater recharge because of the lot condition. On the lower lot, the groundwater recharge can be addressed with seepage pits. The roof drains will go into seepage pits, which is permitted. The driveway drainage will be introduced into chambers, which are approved by the State. This chamber is a water quality device, which filters the water and then goes into a seepage pit. This will be a 5 by 10 precast underground concrete chamber with water quality devices. This change will be shown on the site plans. At the time of the site plan reviews for the individual lots, the drainage calculations for these lots will be provided. The drainage for these sites will meet the Stormwater Management Regulations. Mr. Cook stated that if we were not here for a subdivision this would be considered a Soil Moving Application. This would not require a Public Hearing or notice to the property owners. The fact that we are here for the subdivision gives the Board the chance to review the Site Plans for the individual lots. There will be two Site Plan Public Hearings and the neighbors will be notified. The items in the report of April 19, 2006 from Dr. Pazwash will be addressed. If we cannot comply with these requirements, we do not get a building permit. Mr. Weissman is confident that he can comply with these. Mr. Latushko is the contract purchaser. We have demonstrated the criteria for granting the variances. The resolution can state that just because the subdivision was approved the individual lots will not be given a building permit if we cannot comply with the stormwater regulations.

Mr. Spizziri stated that his understanding of what Mr. Cook has said is that should the Board grant you subdivision approval that you would agree that the subdivision resolution would state very clearly that each lot would be subject to Site Plan review by the Board with Public Hearings and notices sent to the property owners within 200 feet and that should the applicant on either lot not be able to comply with the Stormwater Management requirements no building permit for that lot would be issued.

Mr. Cook stated, “Absolutely”.

Mr. Tichacek asked, “Are these chambers approved by the NJDEP?” PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4-19-06 PAGE 9

Mr. Weissman stated that Stormwater 360 is the name of the company that provides these chambers.

Mr. Pullaro felt that the drainage on Lot A can be handled. He was concerned about the driveway on Lot B. Most of the impervious is on that driveway. That driveway will not change. You will parallel the property line with that driveway at that width. He did not know why this cannot be addressed now. The characteristics of this plan are not going to change. The shape of the house will change but not the driveway. He was concerned about the steepness of that driveway. He did not think we have a driveway that is this long and this steep. The driveway on Shinnecock Road was brought out to Breakneck Road because of the steepness.

Mr. Weissman stated that one of the first plans showed the driveway traversing the slope. That may be how this is developed. The driveway traversed the slope and came down on the west side of the house. This is another variation of a driveway access to that lower lot. We are intending to comply with the Steep Slope Ordinance. The steepest part of the driveway is 17% at the existing entrance driveway. That will not change. We are proposing 15% coming down this driveway. He has spoken with Steve Linz regarding his concerns. He did not have an issue with the driveway exceeding 15% as long it is along the straightaways. Once we get up to the curve in the area going to Lot A, it shallows out. We are proposing sprinklers for the homes since there are no fire hydrants located on Pawnee Lane. The circles in front of the homes have been eliminated to provide adequate turnaround and staging of equipment. There are alternate ways of getting down to Lot B. We intend to provide the runoff calculations, comply with the stormwater management requirements and the water quality for these lots.

Mr. Pullaro asked, “Do we have a driveway in Franklin Lakes that is 400 feet long at 15%?”

Mayor Donch stated that he thought we do on Scioto Drive. The driveways are very steep but not as long as this.

Mr. Conte stated that we are here for a subdivision.

Mr. Lauber was concerned about the water. At present, the water comes down in a sheetflow. He asked Mr. Spizziri if the Board is allowed to proceed with this. Why can’t you come in and build the first house and then come in and subdivide.

Mr. Cook stated that Mr. Latushko intends to keep Lot A for himself. The other lot will be sold. If we cannot make this work, the house will not be built.

Mr. Lauber was concerned about where the water is going after it does into the ground.

Mr. Cook felt that the proofs for the granting of the variances have been established. The real issue is the drainage. That is covered by the Site Plan. We have consented to go to the Board for Site Plan approval for these lots with a Public Hearing and notice to the surrounding property owners.

Mr. Lauber wanted this drainage issue to be addressed now. When you put the water into the ground it will go into the rock.

Mr. Conte asked Mr. Weissman, “Where would you put the chamber?”

Mr. Weissman stated that there are three seepage pits in the front of the house. They are receiving the water from the trench drains coming down the driveway. The chamber would be placed to the east of PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4-19-06 PAGE 10 the seepage pits. We have offered to put a drain along the neighbor’s property if they would allow us. They will not allow us to do that. We will take the water that currently flows from the property and direct it into seepage pits for groundwater recharge. This is part of the stormwater management regulations. The driveway drainage has to be treated through this water quality device. We can provide overflow for the seepage pits, if necessary.

Mr. Lauber asked, “Would it be possible to build an underground retention system?”

Mr. Weissman stated that it is possible to build an underground retention system.

Mr. Friscia wanted to hear from Mr. Spizziri as to how much of the drainage issue we can consider at this time. Mr. Spizziri stated that the Board can address the subdivision and the variances required. The applicant has agreed to have Public Hearings and give notice to the property owners at the time of Site Plan review for these lots. This is a self- imposed condition, which is binding on the applicant. The drainage on the lots can be addressed at that time.

Mr. Tichacek concurred with Mr. Weissman that there are methods that can handle the drainage. He cannot comment on a method because he does not have the specific information.

Mr. Lauber stated that the last report he has from Steve Linz, Fire Official is dated December 7, 2005. He does not have a report for him saying that he has seen this plan. Is there a later report after December 7, 2005? That report states that once he receives the radius of the turns, the grades of the driveway and the widths of the roadway, he will be able to provide his comments.

Mr. Cook stated that he spoke with Mr. Linz and he was comfortable. He would agree to condition the approval upon an updated letter from Mr. Linz.

The Clerk supplied Mr. Lauber with a copy of Steve Linz report dated January 26, 2006.

Mr. Lauber read the report. “Our recommendations are as follows for the plan submitted 12/9/05: The drives to be kept at a width of 18 feet to provide better access and compensate for the steep grades involved. Not to exceed 15%, 10% being NFPA requirements. All inside curb radius be kept at minimum 25 feet and outside at 50 feet minimum as per NFPA 1141 standards. Eliminate center of circles to provide adequate turnaround and staging of equipment in front of the homes. I would strongly recommend home sprinkler systems be installed for the following reasons: there are no fire hydrants located on Pawnee Lane. The Fire Department would have to tie into a North Haledon hydrant on Reservoir Drive. Their system with our experience usually has a significantly lower pressure than United Water in Franklin Lakes. The remote locations of these homes. The steep grades involved to gain access. The loss in water pressure if water was to be pumped due to elevation, friction loss and the length of hose that would have to be laid. Poor access around the structures. Additional time will be needed to set up a water supply.” These are his concerns.

Mr. Weissman stated that the only thing that deviated from that was the slope of the initial entrance driveway.

The Board asked for another letter from Mr. Linz.

Mr. Pullaro asked our engineer to give us a letter on the safety of the driveway. He can comment on the steepness of it and the width. He wanted our engineer’s opinion on the driveway. Mr. Tichacek stated that the information on the driveway will be provided to the Board.

Mr. Cook stated that the driveway to Lot B may or may not change.

Mr. Conte stated that this information could be submitted at the time of the Site Plan review for these lots.

Mr. Pullaro was of the opinion that whatever we do now we will do in the future. If we approve this lot, we will approve the house there. This should be addressed now. He would not want to be in a position where we put in a driveway and it is unsafe.

Mr. Tichacek stated that Mr. Weissman testified that this is conceptual and might change. He can comment on the conceptual driveway.

Mr. Weissman stated that any proposed driveway to Lot B will not exceed 15%. We intend to maintain the existing driveway. There are two or three letters from Boswell Engineering regarding the driveway.

Mr. Tichacek stated that in these letters we have expressed concerns about areas that were greater than 15%. Mr. Weissman has stated in previous hearings that in the final design those isolated areas can be taken out and that he would have a driveway that is less than 15%.

Mr. Weissman stated that the RSIS requirements specifically allow a 15% roadway for rural access roads.

Mr. Lauber referred to the February 10, 2006 Boswell letter, plan revised through January 3, 2006. “The driveway issues for Lot B are the 20% or more sloping conceptually proposed at the turn portions of the drive toward the rotary and beyond toward the garage. We continue to note the issue of the existing driveway having an entrance slope for the first 30 feet of 23%. This is not acceptable for emergency vehicle access. This remains unaddressed and the impact to the limit of disturbance remains unaddressed. We reiterate the recommendation, primarily for safety, that this existing drive must be modified/regraded to provide safe access for both homeowner vehicles and emergency vehicles. The regrading of this existing drive affects the elevation at the proposed driveway connection for Lot B, will affect the limit of disturbance, will result in wall construction and is highly likely to disturb property off site to the east where the drive is two feet off the property line.”

Mr. Weissman stated that spot elevations were taken for the driveway. At four different locations, the elevations of the slopes are shown. Coming down the first slope it is 13.6% where it enters the roadway. The next slope up is 16.2%. The next one up is 16.4%. Up by the junction of the driveway is 11.4%. We can establish a 15% grade for that driveway. We do exceed the 6% maximum. We will provide an emergency parking area for two vehicles off to the left of the driveway entrance. It is the intent of the Ordinance to get cars off the road during snow conditions. We do not intend to do any disturbance beyond our property line to the east. We have 18 feet existing between the bottom of the berm to the edge of the cut portion of the driveway. The berm area provides a safety for the vehicles. There were no further questions for Mr. Weissman from the Board at this time.

The meeting was opened to the Public for questioning of Mr. Weissman. PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4-19-06 PAGE 12

Mr. Russo, the attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Opila and Mr. & Mrs. Polner introduced himself. He agreed with Mr. Spizziri. He referred to the section in the Cox book under subdivisions that it is not unusual for the Board to handle issues such as drainage. He felt that the Board was right to get information on the drainage before the subdivision can be granted. He suggested that if the Board is inclined to grant the subdivision, a section in the deed or the resolution can condition this subject to the ability to get permits and if those building permits cannot be obtained, the subdivision in essence goes away. This protects the Borough and the Board, which is concerned about creating two lots that, may never be built upon. On the revised plan, you took away the dotted line, which limited the disturbance on the middle driveway. Is that correct?

Mr. Weissman stated, “Yes”.

Mr. Russo asked, “Does that mean that your proposal at this point is that you will construct that driveway on the present grade?”

Mr. Weissman stated, “Yes, pretty much”. We can do some minor grading in the areas. The reason he originally showed it is that he did not have the widths at various locations going up to demonstrate that we can have a conforming 18 feet wide driveway. His surveyors have confirmed that the driveway will be 18 feet wide. There will be a trench drain for the driveway. The soil calculations will not change regarding the steep slope disturbance. It is in less than the 15% slope category.

Mr. Russo asked, “What is the highest percentage of the driveway grade?”

Mr. Weissman stated that the highest percentage is 16.4%. Emergency vehicles can traverse that type of grade.

Mr. Russo asked, “What is shout rock?”

Mr. Weissman stated that shout rock is blasting rock that has been placed at this location. The seepage pit would be in the pre-blasted area for Lot A. The area would be finish graded with topsoil.

Mr. Russo asked, “Where does the water from this seepage pit dissipate?”

Mr. Weissman stated that the water penetrates into the shout rock down the solid rock and disperses as it does today. There are recharge requirements based on soils. On Lot B, we can achieve zero runoff. On Lot A, because of the shout rock there will be no further runoff than what exists today.

Mr. Russo asked Mr. Tichacek, “Is that acceptable in today’s standards?” Mr. Tichacek stated that the subdivision should not increase the runoff. The water quality will be addressed as per the stormwater management regulations.

Mr. Russo asked, “Do you know how many trees will be coming down?”

Mr. Weissman stated, “Not yet, No”.

Mr. Russo suggested that the Board should have this information. This is a difficult property to develop. He referred to the lot lines for these properties. The driveway is being called a rural road so that they can meet the RSIS requirements.

Mr. Conte stated that the Board considers the rights of the applicant and the people who are affected by this application. He asked Mr. Russo if he will be presenting any expert testimony.

Mr. Russo stated, “No”.

He had no further questions of Mr. Weissman.

Mr. Conte asked the public for their comments.

Mr. John Kindergan introduced himself. He lives at 838 Apache Road. Lot A is basically impermeable. Lot B has some permeability. The engineer said that there is an existing catch basin on Pawnee Lane. He distributed a copy of a map to the Board. There is no catch basin there. There are two catch basins at the lower end of Pawnee Lane. The catch basin is 246 feet down to Reservoir Drive. He showed pictures of that to the Board and also distributed copies to them.

Mr. Spizziri marked for Identification as Exhibit O-1 a copy of the plan of Pawnee Lane highlighted in yellow showing an existing inlet. Exhibit O-2 is a photograph with an “x” in the right hand corner by the telephone pole. Exhibit O-3 is the plan showing where the catch basin is really located. Exhibit O-4 shows the catch basin on the opposite side of the street.

Mr. Kindergan stated that Lot A is igneous rock. The driveway on Lot A is 600 feet. There is another 600 feet of the Lot A driveway that goes onto Lot B. There is no access from a public street to Lot A except over private property. The driveway on Lot A runs the water onto Pawnee Lane. There are trench drains across the driveway into seepage pits. A seepage pit set in igneous rock does not seep. The system holds the water underground. He showed a pipe going to a non-existing catch basin. It has to go another 200 feet to get to the actual catch basin. This pipe runs into a catch basin, then to a ditch and to Navaho Drive. He had pictures of that if the Board wanted to see them.

Mr. Lauber stated that it was the old drainage system where we basically got the drainage off the road and let it flow overland.

Mr. Kindergan stated that it flows through a ditch between two houses on Pawnee Lane into Navaho Trail. Mr. Conte asked Mr. Kindergan, “Is it your contention that with all the engineering that these experts have said can be done, you are saying it cannot be done?”

Mr. Kindergan stated, “It cannot be done”.

Mr. Conte stated that the experts have testified that it can be done.

Mr. Kindergan stated that the existing drain shown on the plan is not there.

Mr. Conte stated that this issue has to be dealt with.

Mr. Kindergan stated that houses are supposed to face a street. These houses do not face a street. The house on Lot B faces his back yard. That house would require a variance. He requested that the variance not be granted.

Mr. Conte stated that the issue regarding where the water goes from Pawnee Lane must be addressed. PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4-19-06 PAGE 14

Mr. Weissman stated that there are inlets behind the curbs. There is a discharge into a ditch on the east side of Pawnee Lane. The pipe is about 15 inches.

Mr. Conte asked Mr. Tichacek to check to see if the inlets are there.

Mr. Lauber stated that the water is coming down the driveway from Lot A. You have a tank just past the property line that will intercept the cross drain. There is one on the sharp curve before the intersection with the run from Lot B. Where does that go to?

Mr. Weissman stated that the pipes will be interconnected with a 6” PVC pipe. The intent is to put it into a stone trench to allow for dispersion. The overflow will go into an inlet.

Mr. Conte asked if the Public has any further questions of Mr. Weissman.

There were no further questions from the Public for Mr. Weissman.

Mr. Pullaro stated that Mr. Cook has offered that when the Site Plans for the individual lots are reviewed a Public Hearing will be held.

Mr. Spizziri stated that Mr. Cook has consented to a Public Hearing and notification to the property owners as each site plan is submitted for approval. This is not required by Statute, but Mr. Cook can volunteer to do this.

Mr. Cook asked what the Board would like additional time for.

Mr. Conte stated that the Board wants to get a letter from Boswell that the 15% slope on the driveway is acceptable. We want to make sure that these drains are there. We want the letter from Mr. Linz that he has no problems with what is being proposed.

Mr. Lauber asked Mr. Cook about the consideration brought up by Mr. Russo regarding the extinguishment of the subdivision if these lots cannot be built on.

Mr. Cook stated that what we really need are the specific houses to answer these questions. The houses shown on the lots are conceptual. If the Board were to grant this subdivision, when the Site Plans for these lots come in the neighbors would not be noticed. That is why we are granting a Public Hearing and notices to the property owners at that time. This will address Mr. Russo’s concerns. The resolution prepared by Mr. Spizziri should cite this condition. All the conditions in this resolution and the deed would come up in a title search. This is being required because the Board has concerns about the drainage. The drainage issue can be addressed at the time of site plan approval for these lots. Mr. Latushko will be the owner of Lot A.

Mr. Conte asked Mr. Cook if he will consent to grant the Board a continuance.

Mr. Cook agreed to grant the Board a continuance. He asked that the information to discuss be limited to the three items Mr. Conte has cited.

Mr. Conte agreed to that.

A motion to continue this Public Hearing at the May 3, 2006 meeting was moved by Mr. Lauber and seconded by Mr. Gostkowski. All in favor (aye).

FLK-2122 KERIN, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, ADDITION, (DRIVEWAY SETBACK VARIANCE), 352 LONGBOW DRIVE, BLOCK 2201.07 (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 12-05) (1ST HEARING)

Mrs. Kerin, the applicant and Mr. Robert Weissman, the engineer were present.

Mr. Spizziri has reviewed the notices for this application. The notices are in order. The Board has jurisdiction to proceed.

A motion to open the Public Hearing for this application was moved by Mr. Lauber and seconded by Mayor Donch. All in favor (aye).

Mrs. Kerin stated that the addition was approved in 2005. We kept the existing foundation. The original plan called for changing the driveway. We want to keep the existing driveway. The required setback for the driveway is 20 feet. The existing driveway is 15.7 feet for the western side yard setback.

Mr. Spizziri marked the plan entitled, “Plot Plan, Soil Erosion And Sediment Control Plan, Lot 5, Block 2201.07, 352 Longbow Drive, prepared by Robert Weissman, dated 8/17/05, revised through 3/15/06” as Exhibit A-1 for Identification.

Mr. Spizziri swore in Mr. Weissman.

Mr. Weissman introduced himself. This is an application to retain the existing driveway. We originally showed the driveway to comply with the 20-foot setback at the 50-foot setback line. This would have required the removal of the 24” tree. We are proposing to save this tree and retain the driveway in its present location. We are proposing a driveway expansion, which will be setback 21 feet for a third garage bay. The driveway is 15.7 feet off the property line whereas 20 feet is required. The southernmost terminus of the driveway is 17.83 feet off the property line.

Mr. Tichacek stated that the intersection of the existing driveway’s southwest corner and the new driveway expansion should be reworked to eliminate the notch. This should be tapered to 21 feet to the rear.

Mr. Weissman agreed to that.

Mr. Conte stated that the Board does not have a copy of that latest plan.

Mr. Weissman will provide that to the Board.

Mr. Pullaro stated that the Board needs testimony for the granting of the variance.

Mr. Weissman stated that the reason for granting the variance is that the benefits outweigh the detriments. The benefit of saving the tree outweighs the detriment of the removal of the existing driveway. There would be disturbance in the buffer if the driveway were removed. There will be less soil movement. The natural landscaping will be preserved.

Mr. Conte stated that there is a benefit of preserving the natural landscaping on this property.

Mrs. Kerin showed the Board a picture of the property. She hired a tree expert who told her that if the 24” tree were removed the 18” tree next to it would be lost.

Mr. Spizziri swore in Mrs. Kerin regarding her previous testimony. He marked the picture submitted by Mrs. Kerin as Exhibit A-2.

A motion to close the Public Hearing for this application was moved by Mr. Lauber and seconded by Mayor Donch. All in favor (aye).

A motion to approve the application to allow the use of the existing driveway and the granting of the variances for the portion of the driveway past the 50 foot setback line that intrudes into the 20 foot setback area was moved by Mr. Lauber and seconded by Mayor Donch. ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Conte, Mayor Donch, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Gostkowski, Mr. Lauber, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Vierheilig

It was APPROVED.

Mr. Spizziri was authorized to prepare the resolution.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

There were no comments under this Section.

SOIL APPLICATIONS

FLK-2107 JATEN, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, POOL & DRIVEWAY, 128 BIRCH ROAD, BLOCK 2712, LOT 8

The applicant was not present.

A motion to table this application to the next meeting was moved by Mr. Friscia and seconded by Mr. Roberts. All in favor (aye).

FLK-2138 WILCHECK, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, 912 OLENTANGY ROAD, BLOCK 2101.10, LOT 3

Mr. Robert Weissman, the engineer was present.

Mr. Weissman stated that the applicant is looking for a level area for various uses. A 200 square foot shed, trampoline, putting green, bocce ball court and swing set are proposed. Soil calculations have been done. A Slope Analysis has been done to demonstrate compliance with the Slope Ordinance, which we do. The intent is to cut and fill to create a level area. The retaining walls will require inspections. Seepage pits are proposed for the drainage. Access stairs from the rear yard pool to the upper recreation area traversing approximately 22 feet of grade differential are proposed. He

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4-19-06 PAGE 17 commented on the 20 trees noted for removal. Half the trees proposed for removal are dead. He asked, “Who would Mr. Wilcheck speak to about these trees and the replacement criteria?”

The Clerk informed Mr. Weissman that the replacement trees would be done by Jim Hovey and Boswell Engineering will take care of the dead trees. Mr. Tichacek stated that the tiered walls will require stability calculations. Twenty trees are noted for removal. The Code is silent regarding tree removal for putting greens and bocce ball courts. Three of the trees are in the area of the shed. The grading proposed requires trees to be removed. The tree replacement for trees removed outside the permissible boundaries would be 44 (4”) trees.

Mr. Weissman stated that the owner wants a level area for the kids to play.

Mr. Conte asked, “Is there any way to nail down the tree replacement?” He wanted to know where the new trees will go.

Mr. Weissman stated that usually Jim Hovey walks the property with the owner to decide the most appropriate places for the trees.

Mr. Conte wanted to make sure that there is a vehicle in place to make sure this happens.

Mayor Donch asked, “How many years has the owner lived in this house?”

Mr. Weissman guessed about ten years.

Mr. Tichacek stated that the Code is silent regarding cutting down trees for putting greens and bocce ball courts. Seventeen trees would have to be accounted for in the replacement tree calculation. Three trees can be removed for the shed.

Mr. Weissman asked if some screening can be done with evergreen trees to obstruct the view of the neighbors.

Mr. Conte wanted to see deciduous trees planted as part of the replacement.

Mr. Weissman stated that the trees can be planted at the perimeter of the property.

Mr. Conte asked for an as-built showing the replacement trees.

Mr. Weissman will supply an as-built showing the replacement trees.

Mr. Pullaro asked if there is any lighting to put at night.

Mr. Weissman stated, “No”.

A motion to approve the Soil Moving Permit for this application subject to the submission of an as-built showing the replacement trees was moved by Mr. Pullaro and seconded by Mayor Donch. All in favor (aye).

It was APPROVED.

FLK-2158 KOSOBOROD, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, HOME & POOL, 387 VANCE AVENUE, BLOCK 2419.01, LOT 5.01 Mr. Robert Weissman, the engineer was present.

Mr. Weissman stated that there are some improvements on the property proposed for removal. The demolition of the existing dwelling, detached garage and greenhouse are proposed. A new two-story dwelling, driveway, seepage pits, septic field, four foot maximum high retaining rock wall along the driveway and a pool with partial patio surround are also proposed. We comply with the coverages and the height. There was a variance granted for lot width. All tree removal is within the permitted boundaries. The propose roof ridge is 562.0. The driveway has been shifted for better sight distance.

Mr. Lauber stated that where the new driveway is shown you will have better sight distance at the curve to the left.

Mr. Tichacek stated that his main concern was the sight distance. The front walkway could be slightly modified to save the trees.

Mr. Weissman stated that those trees are less than 20 feet from the house. The owner will save as many trees as possible.

Mr. Conte requested that the 12” and 27” trees by the wall be ringed during construction for protection.

Mr. Weissman agreed to do that.

A motion to approve the Soil Moving Permit for this application was moved by Mr. Lauber and seconded by Mrs. Vierheilig. All in favor (aye).

It was APPROVED.

FLK-2163 HECHT & MAZUR, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, POOL, 726 PEACHTREE LANE, BLOCK 2309.01, LOT 2

Mr. Robert Weissman, the engineer was present.

Mr. Weissman stated that this is an application for a pool. No trees are proposed for removal. The lot coverage is increased to 23.8%. The location is conforming. The overall soil excavation and fill are indicated at 148 cubic yards and 155 cubic yards.

Mr. Lauber stated that there is an area that has been cleared adjacent to the macadam driveway between there and the property line where there is a large swingset. It is right on that line.

Mr. Weissman stated that the swingset will be relocated as shown on the plan.

Mr. Tichacek had no problems with this application.

A motion to approve the Soil Moving Permit for this application was moved by Mr. Pullaro and seconded by Mrs. Vierheilig. All in favor (aye). It was APPROVED. PLANNING BOARD MEETING 4-19-06 PAGE 19

FLK-2175 MEKHAIL & HANNA, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, POOL, 703 CHESTNUT PLACE, BLOCK 1314.04, LOT 21

Mr. Michael Spillane from EID Associates was present.

Mr. Spillane stated that this application is for a pool in the back yard. Seven trees are noted for removal. Two trees are indicated as dead. He could not verify that. The lot coverage is indicated as increased 21.63%. The pool patio is very close to the setback line. The reason the pool patio is close to the setback line is to provide an area between the house and the pool because the owner wants to enclose it with a fence since he has small children. There will be a large play area for the children.

Mr. Conte could not see how you would not go into the no disturb area with the machines. He would only approve subject to the submission of an as-built. He suggested that this be done giving some leeway.

Mr. Spillane agreed.

Mr. Tichacek stated that Boswell Engineering is requiring an as-built. The pool patio should be staked out to avoid a setback problem. There are three nonconformities which are the swing set and slide in the 20-foot western side yard no disturbance buffer and onto the adjacent property. This should be relocated to a conforming location. There is a 1.5-foot rock wall within the same 20-foot no disturbance buffer and drainage inlet and piping within the no disturbance buffer. After an inspection it was determined that these can remain.

Mr. Spillane stated that the swingset belongs to the neighbor.

Mr. Pullaro stated that it should be clear that the Board allows swingsets in the 20- foot no disturbance area.

A motion to approve the Soil Moving Permit for this application was moved by Mr. Friscia and seconded by Mrs. Vierheilig. All in favor (aye).

VOUCHERS

A motion to approve the VOUCHERS as presented was moved by Mayor Donch and seconded by Mr. Friscia.

ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Conte, Mayor Donch, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Gostkowski, Mr. Lauber, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Vierheilig

They were APPROVED. A motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by Mr. Pullaro and seconded by Mayor Donch. All in favor (aye).

The meeting adjourned at 10:33 PM.