PEQUANNOCKTOWNSHIPFEBRUARY 5, 2007

PLANNING BOARDWORKSHOP MEETING

MEETING CONVENED:7:30 PM

MEMBERS PRESENT:Dickinson, Tritschler, Imfeld, Jorgensen, Vanderhoff, Fitamant, Krause, Farrelly. Also present was Jill A. Hartmann, Consulting Planner and Michael Simone, Consulting Engineer.

MEMBERS ABSENT:Altis, Troast

NOTICE:Chairman Farrelly stated that the requirements of the Sunshine Law had been complied with by posting the required notice on the Bulletin Board, posting same with the Township Clerk and sending it to the Star Ledger and Daily Record on February 2, 2007.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATION:Chairman Farrelly asked if there was anyone present not listed on the Agenda for this meeting who wished to be heard. No one came forward.

DISCUSSION:

Gallo/Paquet, Sunset Road, Block 2801, Lot 4

Subdivision Concept

Mr. Thomas Donahue of Donahue Engineering represented Mr. Robert Gallo. The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision on a 37.6 acre irregular size tract of land on Sunset Road. The property goes from Sunset Road to Voorhis. A portion of the property is located in Kinnelon.

Mr. Imfeld inquired as to the lot line in the middle of the plat which portrayed half the property in PequannockTownship and half the property in the Borough of Kinnelon. Mr. Donahue stated that the town border was shifted and now Block 2801, Lot 4 borders Block 89, Lot 86.10 in Kinnelon. Mr. Farrelly asked if that property was annexed to the Township of Pequannock. The Mayor, Jay Vanderhoff, recalled that arequest for annexation came before the Township Council, at which time they sent it back to the Borough of Kinnelon, but he did not recall the request for annexation coming back before the Council. Chairman Farrelly stated that no decision can be made until the Board is sure the annexation of property was adopted by the Township Council.

A majority of the property is considered wetlands and transition area to the wetlands. A small portion of the property is considered uplands and that is where the applicant is proposing to

Planning BoardPage 2

February 5, 2007 – Workshop Meeting

construct two dwellings from Sunset along a driveway twelve feet wide with a four foot wide gravel shoulder on each side of the driveway. A DEP permit will be needed because the applicant will have to cross the wetlands in order to construct the driveway. The applicant states that there will be a turnaround for emergency vehicles. The applicant is proposing seepage pits for runoff from the houses and drainage for the roadway. The applicant did preliminary soil log testing for each house and the perk was acceptable. The applicant is proposing to have walls on either side of the roadway to provide for proper slope and for better drainage. They are proposing a wooden guide rail along the driveway.

Mr. Imfeld requested proper designation of blocks and lots on the plans submitted for subdivision. Mr. Imfeld inquired as to who owns the roadway at the present time. Mr. Donahue stated that Mr. Paquet is owner of the property and he will provide an easement to the proposed lots. Mr. Imfeld wanted to know the distance from Sunset Road to where the houses will be constructed. Mr. Imfeld was told by Mr. Donahue that distance will be 1500 feet. Mr. Farrelly inquired as to what utilities will service the lots. Mr. Donahue stated septic, water from Sunset or well will service the lot. Mr. Jorgensen inquired as to the grade of the property and was told by Mr. Donahue that all the plans were conceptual and all the grading will have to be worked out. Mr. Jorgensen was concerned about the walls being constructed along the roadway and the possible damming of water there.

Mr. Simone was concerned about the driveway access to the proposed homes and wanted to know how many actual homes would be using that driveway. Mr. Donahue stated that possibly three homes will utilize the driveway. Mr. Simone stated that typically the Board approved two homes sharing one long driveway. Mr. Simone inquired as to whether the homes would utilize gas or propane. Mr. Simone asked whether the application would be considered a minor or major subdivision. Ms. Hartmann stated that as long as the subdivision has access to Sunset Road with a fifty foot stem it would be considered a minor.

Mr. Fitamant stated that he would like to see comments from the DEP. Mr. Vanderhoff inquired as to who would own the driveway and who would have the access/egress easement. Mr. Vanderhoff stated that Sunset Road has just been improved and that the Town would be looking for major repair of Sunset Road after construction. Mr. Fitamant inquired as to whether there would be underground or overhead electric. Mr. Gallo stated they would be underground. Mr. Jorgensen wants trees marked and monuments placed on the property locating the wetlands.

Mr. Donahue asked the Board how they would perceive the driveway, whether it would be considered private or owned by the Township. The Board stated it would be a private driveway without any township responsibility. Mr. Farrelly asked how the roadway would drain and was told by Mr. Donahue there will be inlets along the side of the road, which will drain into seepage pits.

The applicant agreed to consider all the concerns of the Board and will submit a revised plan at a future date.

Planning BoardPage 3

February 5, 2007 – Workshop Meeting

Mazzanna, 68 West End Avenue, Block 802, Lot 28

Major Subdivision

The applicant Thomas and Denise Mazzanna were represented by Gary J. Needleman, Esquire of Needleman and Pisano, 161 Route 202, Montville, New Jersey. Also present was Tom Boorady of Darmofalski Engineering. The applicant proposes to subdivide off a portion of 68 West End Avenue, owned by them, together with a small portion of 95 Hopper Avenue to create one building lot. The lot area of the proposed lot will be 15, 922 square feet in an R-15 zone. The applicant is proposing to obtain 627 square feet from 95 Hopper Avenue. The proposed lot will conform to all lot requirements with the exception of the front width.

Ms. Hartmann asked if the driveway will be placed in the township right of way. Mr. Boorady stated the applicant will be getting a driveway easement from PassaicValley. Ms. Hartmann stated that the Newark Aqueduct has an easement from the town, therefore, the applicant will be getting an easement from the easement holder into the right of way. Mr. Vanderhoff inquired as to if the applicant approached Lot 1.01 about buying property from them. Mr. Needleman stated that was a subdivision a few months ago and they were not interested in selling any of their property. Mr. Vanderhoff had great issues with the width of the proposed lot on road frontage, he felt the lots are getting too tight and coming up that short on the frontage is an issue for him.

Mr. Jorgensen asked the Planner, Jill Hartmann, if the lot could meet the flag lot requirements. Ms. Hartmann stated that the lot couldn’t because the house would be in the middle of lot 30. She stated what could be done is enlarge the proposed lot by area by moving the lot line closer to West End Avenue and restrict where the house could be constructed. Ms. Hartmann stated that the actual width of the lot is 85 feet but the lot frontage is only 49.67 feet. Ms. Hartmann asked if the applicant tried to purchase the triangular piece of lot 1.01, which would increase lot frontage on the proposed lot. Mr. Needleman stated they did try to purchase that piece but the property owner was not interested. Mr. Simone suggested that a possible purchase of more property from Lot 37 would increase the lot frontage. Mr. Vanderhoff stated again that he had a problem with road frontage. Mr. Vanderhoff stated that if the proposed lot was made to be 30,000 square feet then there could be some justification to approving the subdivision with a 50 foot road frontage. Mr. Jorgensen stated that the frontage is only 49.67 feet not 85 feet.

Mr. Farrelly polled the Board for their thoughts. Mr. Dickinson stated that the unique shape of the right of way and the frontage is less than half of what is required and might set precedent for other lot subdivision, which he feels is not doable. Mr. Tritschler thought the project was not doable. Mr. Imfeld had mixed emotions because of the frontage butyet thought the lot was unusual because of the aqueduct. Mr. Krause felt the same way as Mr. Imfeld. Mr. Fitamant would like to see the applicant maximize the width by purchasing additional property and if not possible would vote no. Mr. Jorgensen stated that being the frontage is only half of what is required he would vote no, he felt that at 85 feet the applicant would still need a variance. Mr. Vanderhoff felt it was too small a frontage so he would say no. Mr. Farrelly felt the application was not doable.

Planning BoardPage 4

February 5, 2007 – Workshop Meeting

Mr. Needleman asked if increasing the size of the lot would help the application at all and was told by Mr. Farrelly that increasing the size of the lot does not help the inadequate frontage of 49 feet. Mr. Farrelly stated that if the applicant purchased property from lot 1.01 that would make Lot 1.01 nonconforming. Mr. Mazzanna stated he has lived on the lot since 2002.

There being no further business to discuss, motion by Vanderhoff, second by Krause to adjourn at 9:01 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Zacharenko

Recording Secretary