August 16, 2011 Planning Board

August 16, 2011 Planning Board

Pursuant to the “Open Public Meeting Act,” The Sentinel and the Gloucester County Times were notified of this meeting. A public notice was posted in the Municipal Building. The meeting of the Township of Franklin Planning Board was called to order by Steven Ranson, Chairman, at 7:02 PM with the following members present: Joseph Petsch, Harold Atkinson, John Melleady, John Bruno, Jim Rohrer, Anthony Gaetano, Alt.1-Jason Brandt, Vito Genna, and Steven Ranson. Attorney B. Michael Borelli and Engineer, Jim McKelvie are present.

Absent: James Mentzer

Chairman, Steven Ranson led in the flag salute. Mr. Ranson announces that the meeting was being videotaped and may be broadcast on Channel 9. Mr. Ranson states that no alternates are to be seated.

Minutes

PB11-2 Frank Fumo, Sr. B5702 L55 Completeness-Major/Minor Subdivision to create 2 new lots plus remainder lot Main Road

Resolution

Secretary’s Report

Correspondence

Adjourn

Minutes

Upon a motion by Mr. , seconded by Mr. , all in favor, to approve the Minutes of the 5/17/2011 meeting as submitted. Motion passed.

Resolutions-None No applications

Secretary’s Report

Upon a motion by Mr. , seconded by Mr. , to approve Secretary’s Report in the amount of $4,275.00 for the month of July, 2011.

RCV: Mr. Petsch, yes; Mr. Atkinson, yes; Mr. Melleady, yes; Mr. Mentzer, yes; Mr. Rohrer, yes; Mr. Gaetano, yes; Mr. Genna, yes; . Motion passed.

PB11-2 Frank Fumo, Sr. B5702 L55 Completeness-Major/Minor Subdivision to create 2 new lots plus remainder lot Main Road

Resolution

Present are Frank Fumo, Sr., applicant and his attorney, Tara Vargo.

Mr. Borelli states that this is not an application for approval, it is an application for minor subdivision but Planning Board Engineer, Jim McKelvie deemed it incomplete as Minor, that this is a Major not a Minor Subdivision rendering his opinion. Mr. Borelli also did a letter concurring with Mr. McKelvie that Municipal Land Use Law states the difference and applicant’s Attorney, Tara Vargo responded.

Mr. Borelli suggests the Board members review those letters now, please do so, and the other additional thought is there should be construction of a roadway with a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Atkinson states most communities do not hear applications unless escrow monies are replenished.

Mrs. Vargo states under Municipal Land Use Law, municipalities cannot ask for more than what is permitted to be taken, but understands that her applicant will replenish what is incurred.

Mr. Borelli states to clarify $1500.00 is the amount requested for escrow. Engineers usually go a lot further, $1500.00 was a bit of a compromise as there was a lot more to it, regardless of what happens tonight, in talking to Jim McKelvie, $1500.00 will cover what he has done. Mr. Petsch states to stop the applicant at this point, is creating an unfair issue as this is a determination only, counsel understands it needs to be replenished and they will pay it. Mr. Borelli states it is at the Board’s discretion. Mr. Petsch states we need to update the ordinance for fees. Mr. Borelli states Jim did not come tonight as he did not want to

Mrs. Vargo states not to belabor the point, do not want to pick on Mr. McKelvie and his $1500.00 review, but she does not know what this is to equate this to. Basically, Mrs. Vargo feels that the review letter from Engineer is not a $1500.00 letter.

Mrs. Rafuse states in the Ordinance it is stated dollar amount of what we are allowed to take for each application, it is also noted that there may be the necessity of replenishing the account and the applicant will be responsible. Mrs. Rafuse further states that some Engineers do not follow the purchase order request criteria, whereas, they need to have monies encumbered prior to doing any work. Mrs. Rafuse states escrows need to be paid, and if there is a question of dispute, that would be between the Applicant and the Engineer, leaving the Township out of it.

Mr. Petsch states Secretary is correct.

Mr. Atkinson states if we do not move forward, are we fair in asking for additional monies.

Mr. Petsch states at this point in time I see two issues and move that we go forward that applicant did pay amount necessary and secondarily professionals are told to do Purchase order prior to doing work, all professionals are instructed and Mrs. Vargo, counsel has agreed to pay additional escrows.

Mr. Borelli states Mrs. Vargo has equated this subdivision with the Leo subdivision - largest commercial. Mrs. Vargo states this is her point that lots were created on driveway.

Mr. Borelli recaps 2011 Cox book section 24-3 says if insufficient funds exist the CFO must notice applicant and applicant must post an amount to the approving authority the additional funds. Mr. Borelli states there can be a request for additional funds.

Upon a motion by Mr. Brandt and Mr. Melleady, all in favor, to proceed with determination of major and minor subdivision.

Mr. Atkinson states we are constantly chasing money from applicants and Township has to pay the bill, and when auditors did audit of outstanding escrow bills, Township had to pay the bill.

Mr. Borelli states if there is a dispute between professionals and applicant, it goes to Township, if it still cannot be worked out it goes to Construction Board of Appeals.

Mrs. Vargo states we are here to discuss major or minor, we are not here to approve or discuss this, do you have all information to make a rational decision about this. This is on Main Road, with 10’ wide stem. Applicant proposes to create 3 lots 4 acres each onto a 20’ wide easement. Issues get raised and the issue is if this is a safe arrangement, or is this for Township Road to go up and down picking up trash, that is driving force behind Engineer and he is not here and we hear from Solicitor who states the Engineer says it is good planning. Mrs. Vargo states applicants idea is a good plan, applicant wants to propose minor subdivision, if he creates road, it is an automatic major subdivision. Mrs. Vargo feels this is small and uncomplicated, non-paved road, shared access, private road just one entrance onto Main Road, it is not your job to say this is county roadway entrances onto makes sense, this applicant proposed a private easement rather than making it a public roadway. Mr. Melleady asks if applicant has shown this to County. Mrs. Vargo states no, but this has safe site distances. Mrs. Vargo states this a minor application with easement, not saying that this will be approved, it is not done all the time, but it is warranted.

Mr. Borelli states you have heard the application, this is for completeness, Mr. McKelvie, Engineer and Mr. Borelli have looked at this and in conclusion with addressing what fits, it was simple, no lots with frontage on the street makes Zoning Officer not approve a single-family dwelling zoning permit without frontage, reason for ordinance with complexities you need to have engineering.

Mrs. Vargo states the MLUL provides opportunities to ask for waivers or variance for lack of street frontage, if we consult 40:55-D-5 no permit shall be provided with frontage-street, the Planning and Zoning Board are given authority to give variances. This is situation where applicant can get a waiver. Applicant can ask for waiver, we are complete to ask for minor subdivision. Mrs. Vargo states the question today is did we meet this checklist for minor or major subdivision.

Mr. Borelli states Mrs. Vargo is putting the cart before the horse. They are asking for variance for lot not fronting on the street, which is an automatic major. Checklist with Major subdivision you may ask for waivers or variances, there is room for some considerations.

Mr. Petsch states with frontage across, it could be with 10’ and or 25’ split into total of 3 lots. Mr. Atkinson even if they change subdivision, we are looking at major or minor through ordinance. Mr. Borelli does not want to scrutinize. Mr. Petsch states he does not want to advocate for three driveways.

Mr. Melleady asks could we state this is a minor but condition it to some major issues. Mr. Borelli states if you do that, then applicant would not agree to major items as you would have deemed it a minor. Mr. Brandt asks is there a standard for shared driveway.

Mrs. Vargo states we are asking for variance and Board can address concerns.

Mr. Borelli states we are getting into too much detail and going beyond the point.

Mr. Melleady asks does anyone know this area, for soils. Mr. Bruno states it is hard and dry.

Mrs. Vargo states this is 3 lots on 12 acres.

Mr. Melleady asks if there is Township drainage on individual lots with underground septic systems to perk without addressing subdivision.

Upon a motion by Mr. Brandt, seconded by ______deeming it complete for minor subdivision.

Mr. Borelli states if money is owed for escrow you will face resistance for payment when they will say it is only a minor application. Mr. Petsch states if bad design it would be denied at the Board.

Mr. Petsch states this is not an application for snow removal, trash removal or school busses going down the driveway.

Mr. Borelli states that is why you may want a cul-de-sac. Mr. Petsch states we are putting the cart before the horse, Township will not plow snow, pick-up trash or send school busses down the driveway.

Mrs. Vargo fully understands and states that this note will be on deed notice, clearly stated, for special person that likes this.

Mr. Gaetano states shared access for all, why not 10’. Mrs. Vargo states Emergency coordinators needs at least 18’.

Upon a motion by Mr. Brandt, seconded by Mr. Bruno to deem application complete for a minor subdivision.

RCV: Mr. Petsch, yes; Mr. Atkinson, no, Mr. Melleady, yes; Mr. Bruno, yes; Mr. Rohrer, yes, Mr. Gaetano, yes; Mr. Brandt, yes; Mr. Genna, yes, Mr. Ranson, yes.

Correspondence Original No Action Required

Secondary Correspondence No Action Required

Adjourn

Upon a motion by Mr. Atkinson, seconded by Mr. Petsch, all in favor, to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

E. Lynne Rafuse, Secretary

Planning Board, Township of Franklin