Planning Board, 11-20-21017
The applicant is still seeking a sewer connection. The plan was reapproved.
Planning Board, 8-14-2017
Mr. Capellini advised the board that the applicant has not been able to get an easement from any abutting properties for a sewer connection and is now polling residents on Hilltop Drive to see if they are interested in the applicant installing a public sewer line that would service the entire street.
Pending a resolution of the issue, the board granted a second 90-day extension.
Planning Board, 5-8-2017
During the “regular” session the board voted to grant a first 90-day time extension, with Mr. Capellini advising the board that there were other issues he wanted to talk about in the work session. During the work session, he advised the board that the applicant was still trying to get an easement to the existing sewer system from either Yorkhill Rd or Sultana Drive so that the third lot could be developed. He said there was some interest from one homeowner but that the cost was substantial and the developer had to decide if it was worthwhile. Mr. Kincart said he would like to see the third lot developed. The board gave the applicant more time to work out the possible easement.
Planning Board, 11-21-2016
Explaining that there are economic problems associated with doing a two lot subdivision, Mr. Capellini said the applicant was still trying to get a sewer easement that would give the property access to the sewer line and make a third building lot possible. The board reapproved the subdivision but asked Mr. Capellini to have the applicant’s engineer provide the board with an update on the status of the easement negotiations. Mr. Tegeder suggested that if there is no progress obtaining the easement, the board should consider approving the 2-lot subdivision.
Planning Board, 8-8-2016
The board approved a second 90-day extension. The applicant is trying to get an easement to an existing sewer line. If he does, he’ll be able to develop the third lot; if not, he’ll build only two houses. The transition to a new engineer is still in the works.
Planning Board, 6-13-2016
The board approved a first 90-day extension. Mr. Capellini explained that the applicant has a new engineer and was trying to get a sewer easement that would permit the third lot to be developed. The preliminary approval shows the third lot as not being developed.
Planning Board, 12-7-2015
The applicant is seeking re-approval of the 3-lot subdivision originally approved in 2008. According to attorney Al Capellini, the applicant is in the process of hiring a new engineer and getting drawings transferred and is also negotiating with an abutting property owner for an easement that would allow the applicant to hook up to sewers which would make the third lot developable. After a check of the records, it was determined that the earlier approval for the 3-lot subdivision was still in play and that the board had never formally changed the approval to a 3-lot subdivision with only 2 permitted building lots.
The board voted unanimously for the re-approval.
Planning Board, 10-5-2015
Mr. Capellini, attorney for the applicant, explained that a new project engineer had been brought on-board and that the applicant is currently in negotiations over easements. The Planning Board granted the requested extension.
Planning Board, 7-13-2015
The board approved a 90 day time extension
Planning Baod, 12-8-2014
Mr. Capellini reported that the applicant “just needs more time”. The extension was approved, but the wording of the resolution was changed to clarify that the project consists of two building lots and one conservation lot, rather than three building lots.
Planning Board, 8-11-2014
Two extensions were granted. Mr. Capellini said he expected a revised plan showing the two lots, plus the third lot that will not be developed, will be ready for submission in September.
Planning Boad, 9-9-2013
The Board approved a second 90 day extension while the developer submits a new plan based on the two building lots to the DEP.
Planning Board, 8-12-2013
Approved the new plan, a first 90 day extension and a tree permit. As a condition of approval, the applicant will submit a letter indicating that there are no new environmental impacts; if anything, the reduction of one building lot will reduce the environmental impacts.
Planning Board, 7-15-2013
The Board reviewed a proposed tree harvesting plan for the third lot with the goal of balancing the economics of the harvesting against protection of the wetlands and the likelihood that many of the trees are likely to fall on their own and that if they do, they could create an erosion problem. The applicant will return in August for a public hearing on an amended subdivision plan, tree and wetlands permits.
Planning Board, 6-20-2013
Jack Goldstein, the applicant’s engineer presented a sketch of a revised subdivision plan that enlarged the backyard for one of the two lots. The Planning Board appeared not to have any problems with the revisions. Most of the discussion centered on the applicant’s desire to do tree harvesting on the third “not to be built” lot in conjunction with tree removal that will be required to build out the two lots; once the two lots are developed, the third lot will become landlocked and inaccessible. A number of trees on the third lot were damaged during Hurricane Sandy.
Planning Board, 4-22-2012
A revised plan for 2 lots was submitted that is based on the previously granted variances. However, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Tegeder expressed the opinion that the two remaining lots could be better situated now that the third lot was not going to be used as a building lot. For the applicant, the issue became one of not wanting to make any significant changes to the revised plan that would trigger another DEP review which would delay the approval further. The applicant also wants to keep a third lot, noted on the plan as “not a building lot,” in the event the site is sewered and the lot can be developed.
The Board will consider the revised plan as an amendment to the already approved preliminary plat. This will give the applicant time to” tweak” the 2 lots and return to the Board.
Planning Board, 3-11-2013
Originally approved as a 3-lot subdivision, the applicant is now proposing a two lot subdivision on a cul d’sac at the end of Hilltop Rd. Because of the cul d’sac, the application now becomes a major subdivison. Because the applicant’s engineer is recuperating from back surgery, there has been a delay in submitting a final plat with the changes. When the plan is ready, it will be reviewed at a work session, possibly in April.
Planning Board , 1-14-2013
The Board postponed taking action on the request for re-approval of this modified 3-lot subdivision as the applicant has not been able to submit a revised subdivision map.Planning Director Tegeder noted that as the original approval was 5-7 years old, the Board should not give a rote re-approval as there may be significant changes that would require a fuller presentation of the new plan and Board review, even if, he added, the number of proposed lots is being reduced from three to two and there will be less of an environmental impact.On behalf of the applicant, attorney Al Capellini said his client did not want to “start from scratch.”
Planning Board, 9-10-2012
Attorney Al Capellini explained that due to DEP considerations, the previously approved 3-lot subdivision will be redesigned to eliminate one lot but that when the revised drawings are submitted to the Board, the possibility of a future third lot may be left open. The Board approved a second 90-day time extension to give the applicant more time to prepare the revised drawings.