0:00The meeting opened with a examination of the completeness review for the proposed subdivision by Quality Home Developers LLC. The application, described as a “minor subdivision,” requested waivers from several zoning ordinance requirements, notably the depiction of structures within 200 feet of the property and details on utility connections and stormwater improvements. The applicant’s representative argued that since existing structures would be removed, a full depiction was less critical. However, the board members expressed reservations about granting waivers without comprehensive information. One member stated, “I think we need to have all the information we can before we’re granting waivers for something like that,” highlighting a desire for a cautious approach.

Board professionals, including the board engineer and planner, emphasized the importance of complete documentation to protect public health, safety, and welfare. They pointed out that the ordinance requires consideration of suitability factors such as flood conditions and rock formations, which necessitated thorough documentation. Procedural questions arose about whether the board should hear from the applicant regarding the necessity of addressing waivers alongside the completeness determination. The applicant’s representative suggested that the application could be deemed complete while still requiring additional information during the hearing process, noting that the proposed lots met the ordinance standards of 75 by 100 feet each.

Despite this, the board remained hesitant. Members reiterated the importance of adhering to River Edge’s procedural standards, expressing discomfort with the idea of granting waivers without a clear understanding of the subdivision’s implications. The debate continued, with the applicant’s representative assuring the board of their commitment to depict existing structures to the best of their ability.

38:00Eventually, a motion was made to accept the application as complete and to grant the requested waivers, which passed following a vote. The decision underscored a tension between regulatory standards and the desire for expediency. Following the acceptance, the applicant’s representatives, including Mr. David Michael, the principal of the company, provided an overview of the subdivision intentions. Michael confirmed that he is the sole member of the LLC and clarified that plans for the homes would depend on subsequent approvals from the building department and zoning compliance.

Technical discussions followed, led by Sean Mullen, who presented the engineering aspects of the subdivision. Mullen detailed the property’s compliance with the R1 residential zone requirements and plans for stormwater management, including the installation of seepage pits or CTech chambers to manage water runoff. He claimed these measures would reduce water runoff compared to current levels. However, concerns were raised about the impact on neighboring properties, particularly regarding water runoff and tree removal.

1:15:37Public comments echoed these concerns, with residents from Web Avenue expressing significant worries about potential drainage problems and flooding. One resident emphasized the need to ensure no new water runoff would affect his property, while another detailed past flooding issues attributed to a nearby property’s construction. Residents expressed distrust toward the builder, citing instances of unauthorized tree removal and inadequate oversight.

Board members acknowledged the validity of these public concerns, discussing the necessity for the applicant to adhere to all regulations, including tree management and drainage compliance. The demolition of existing structures on the property was also a point of concern, with the board emphasizing the importance of securing the property to prevent unauthorized access and ensuring that current structures were demolished before perfecting the subdivision.

1:36:16The meeting also involved a discussion on the interpretation of wooded areas and the sufficiency of information for subdivision applications. Board members debated whether the lack of detailed insights into existing drainage infrastructure warranted a “no” vote on the subdivision. Despite differing opinions, the motion to approve the subdivision failed due to insufficient support, leading to an agreement to schedule a follow-up meeting to clarify resubmission requirements and ensure all necessary documentation was completed.