MARLBORO — Planning Board members once again put a hold on the Old Mill Estates final major subdivision approval, requesting that all conditions be met before the board will give the go-ahead for the development.
Old Mill Estates, which is proposed to be constructed on Old Mill Road, off Route 79 near the border of Marlboro and Freehold Township, was granted preliminary approval for nine residential lots, one lot for an existing dwelling and one lot for open space in September 2007.
The application was brought before the Planning Board in November 2008 for final approval, but board members decided to carry the matter until all of the conditions set by the board have been met.
During the board’s May 20 meeting, the application was brought forward again under the new legal representation of attorney Craig Gianetti.
Permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have now been received, but there were still items on the list of conditions that have yet to be met.
Mayor Jonathan Hornik, who sits on the board, said he was having a case of déjà vu as Gianetti named items that would be completed after the final approval was given.
The mayor said he knew Gianetti had taken over the case, but he pointed out that in November the board requested that all of the conditions be met before final approval for the application would be granted.
Among the items still missing from the conditions set by the board were calculations pertaining to a retaining wall to be included on the property.
Engineer Lorali Totten, representing the applicant, explained that her client was to receive those calculations from the manufacturer of the retaining wall, but said the problem is those calculations are typically provided closer to the time of construction. She explained that the cost of the calculations is usually tied to the cost of the materials for the retaining wall, which is why manufacturers prefer to relay those numbers closer to the build time.
Totten suggested that item be left open as a continuing condition that would be finalized after final approval for the project has been granted.
Hornik said he did not want to allow open conditions because the applicant came before the board unprepared.
Gianetti said the applicant was not asking the board to grant approval with a long list of standing conditions, but rather this particular area is one that usually is completed before the final plans are signed off on. The attorney suggested that the board move forward with the application, but not sign off for construction to commence until the calculations for the retaining wall were provided to the township engineer.
The mayor said his opinion on the matter had not changed and said the calculations should be brought forward prior to the granting of final site plan approval.
Another area that had yet to be addressed by the applicant is the completion of soil testing as required by township ordinance.
Totten said she previously had opined
that because the property on which the subdivision will be built has been used for residential purposes, there was no need for soil testing. At the May 20 meeting Totten said she now agrees that the soil testing should be completed because additional research revealed that although the property has recently been used for residential purposes, aerial photos
from the 1930s indicated the area had been used as a farm in the past.
“I think you are right in asking for some pesticide testing because it turns out (agriculture officials) were saying since 1917 that it was a good idea to use arsenic based pesticides, which went all the way through to 1967,” Totten explained.
She said there are certain requirements in the ordinance which the applicant may not be able to meet.
Among those requirements is a stipulation to provide a report on which types of pesticides or contaminates were kept on the site in the past.
Totten said since the property has been a residential use in recent history, it was likely that information pertaining to the types of pesticides used while the land served as a farm in the 1930s may not be available since the original owners may have died.
The board’s attorney, Michael Herbert, said the township engineer would make the final determination as to whether sufficient information is provided. Herbert offered Totten assistance if she had any questions pertaining to the requirements of the ordinance.
Board members also requested that as part of the landscaping plan for the project, a listing and map of all the trees currently on the property be included. The map would have trees that are to be removed distinguished from those which are to remain on the site.
Councilman Frank LaRocca, who sits on the board, said such a map would help prevent the “oops” excuse that is sometimes given by a builder when a construction crew cuts down trees that have not been designated for elimination.
The matter was carried to the board’s June 17 meeting.
Contact Rebecca Morton at [email protected].