Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Somerset County seeks planning-board courtesy review for senior center pavilion; stormwater and access issues flagged
Summary
Somerset County presented an informal review to Hillsborough’s planning board for a 24-by-34-foot pavilion at the Somerset County Senior Wellness Center. The board accepted the informal submission and identified stormwater management and drainage connections as the principal outstanding issues to resolve.
Somerset County asked the Hillsborough Township Planning Board on Feb. 6 for an informal (courtesy) review of a proposed pavilion at the Somerset County Senior Wellness Center, 339 South Branch Road. County counsel and the applicant's engineer described a 24-by-34-foot metal-frame pavilion with electric service, fans, lighting and radiant heaters to provide three-season space for meals and activities.
Marina Steinle, attorney for the County of Somerset, said the project is presented as a courtesy review under the Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-31), and that the county will acquire two small property slivers from a neighboring development to slightly enlarge the senior-center lot. The enlargement, she said, is part of a developer agreement tied to a nearby residential subdivision and will include frontage sidewalk improvements and a driveway connection to Zank Court.
Adam Slutsky, a licensed professional engineer representing Somerset County, testified the pavilion would not include plumbing beyond electric service, and the county does not expect changes to traffic from the pavilion. Sidewalks between the existing building and the pavilion will be ADA-compliant, he said. Slutsky described site grading, lawn inlets and a plan to tie drainage into an existing system that flows to a detention basin near Longfellow Road.
Board professionals focused their comments on stormwater management. Township engineer Mr. Mejia said the subdivision that created the nearby detention basin did not anticipate the additional impervious coverage from the pavilion. Mejia recommended the county and its engineer evaluate additional best-management practices (BMPs), including the possibility of an at‑grade buyer-retention basin with an underdrain, to mitigate added runoff. Slutsky said the site has a sump pump and high groundwater, and the county is uncertain whether dry wells would function effectively; the county will consider alternatives.
Planning staff and the board noted other technical comments in the planner and engineer reports were addressable. The board accepted the experts' testimony and then voted to "approve the application as provided to the board, with all comments and agreements between the parties in tonight's testimony, and following all the requirements or recommendations not addressed tonight in the various reports of the board's professionals and the fire marshal," per the motion presented at the meeting.
Board members recorded the motion and roll call; the board attorney said the county could seek a formal resolution later but accepted the informal approval and the listed conditions and professional comments.
Next steps: the county and its engineer will work with township staff to refine drainage design and provide any required construction details; the board will expect compliance with outstanding professional recommendations before formal permits are issued.
