Proposed Housing Development Would Remove 162 Trees

The public cross-examination of the engineer for a housing development proposal in Chatham Township continued during the township’s planning board meeting Monday night.

The hearing for the proposal, which constitutes development in seven lots around Ormont Avenue, Longview Avenue, Mountainside Drive and River Road, began at the board’s last meeting on June 20.

However, detailed cross-examination of the witness by the board and Steven Schaffer, attorney for developer Fenix-Chatham, had given the public few minutes to ask questions.

During the meeting, Rob Moschello, engineer with Gladstone Design, answered most of the questions about the proposed property and research executed but deferred to Schaffer for most of the legal questions.

Tree Removal

Moschello had previously explained that 162 of the current 514 trees on the lots proposed for construction will be removed.

Attorney Rob Simon, who was representing resident Steven Meyer, asked the engineer if there was any tree replacement proposed for various lots where trees will be removed.

“No, we comply with the township’s requirement for the number of trees per acre required to be left on the property,” Moschello said, referring to a township ordinance that requires a minimum of 16 trees per acre.

Moschello said the plan is to maintain the “wooded regions on the rear portions of the sites.”

Simon said there isn’t anything in place to prevent removing trees, constructing accessory structures or installing a pool.

Moschello replied that, if the homeowners wanted to remove more trees, they would have to get a tree removal permit from the township, provide a grating plan and come up with calculations for storm water management.

“There are controls in place that would prevent property owners from doing that,” Moschello said.

Simon and David Goldfield, who lives at 75 Ormont Road, both asked whether any trees on current residents’ properties that are on the borders of their land will be damaged by any of the construction that will be occurring.

Moschello said they have not looked at individual trees yet but that they will “make every effort to save trees that are right on the edge and comply with township requirement.”

Common Driveways

The plan calls for some of the new houses to share a common driveway in addition to each property’s personal driveway. Maintenance, which would include snow plowing, for these common driveways would be handled by the homeowner association.

The common driveways will be formed from already existing roads, such as Longview Avenue and Mountainside Drive. Amy Evans, who lives on 67 Susan Drive, wanted to know how roads such as these that are currently public rights of way can become private property.

“Remember, right now, this is undeveloped roadway,” Schaffer said. “There is precedent for that so long as we don’t foreclose future use by the municipality, as long as we don’t do something that stops them from requiring further improvement if more people want to tie in.”

Regarding the size of the road, Evans asked if one of these common driveways would accommodate a ladder truck if one of the seven proposed houses caught fire.

Moschello said the common driveway’s 16-foot width is adequate for an emergency vehicle to get through.

Simon asked if there was any analysis done for how UPS trucks and garbage trucks gain access to the common driveways.

“The common driveways are wide enough for any vehicle to pull down and, if need be, they can turn around at the end of the driveway,” Moschello said.

Simon brought up the issue of parking, asking where guests would park if one of the houses hosts a graduation party, for instance.

“They can park in the proposed driveway for the house itself because it is long enough to fit cars in there,” Moschello said. “We also have on-street parking on Longview Avenue.”

However, he said there would not be any parking on the common driveway.

Representing current resident Melissa Mears, attorney Daniel Somers said that the location of his client’s house would necessitate the use of one of the proposed common driveways.

“You’re proposing a common driveway that’s going to have four people on it rather than three,” Somers said. “And you didn’t provide notice to a property owner to have them become part of a common driveway with three other people.”

Schaffer said he would have to check into that and would have a more detailed answer at a later meeting.

Further Discussion

Board member Jonathan Cohn, who led the meeting in place of President Lydia Chambers, said another unrelated application is scheduled to have its first reading at the next meeting on July 25.

Schaffer said he will make sure an engineer and a representative who can discuss the environmental aspects of the Gladstone proposal will be available for the meeting, in case the reading of the new application does not take up the entire meeting.

However, board attorney William Robertson said since the new application will have its first reading that night, Gladstone's proposal might not be discussed again until August or later.