Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater And Soil Movement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves Lot 89 soil‑movement and grading plan after engineer testimony and neighbor concerns
Summary
The Planning Board approved a soil‑movement and lot‑grading application for Lot 89 filed by a developer represented by James Delia, accepting stormwater and retaining‑wall plans and major‑soil permit fee requirements while hearing neighbor concerns about erosion and tree loss.
The Township of Washington Planning Board on Dec. 17 approved a soil‑movement and lot‑grading application for Lot 89 after receiving testimony from the applicant’s engineer and a short public comment period in which neighboring homeowners raised erosion concerns.
Counsel James Delia presented the application on behalf of the developer identified in the hearing as Washington (developer). Engineer Tyler Vanderbaugh described the lot‑grading and erosion‑control plans for a proposed single‑family home, including excavation for a walk‑out basement, patio and in‑ground pool. Vanderbaugh gave the earth‑movement totals: total cut 2,922 cubic yards, total fill 1,182 cubic yards, and a net export of 1,740 cubic yards. "This leaves us a net export of 1,740 cubic yards," Vanderbaugh testified.
The plan calls for multiple retaining walls and a stormwater management system sized to the subdivision design storm. Board engineer Paul Azzelina told the board the lot plan is "substantially complete" but flagged open items that the applicant must address — notably confirming retaining‑wall structural calculations and possibly increasing the size or number of infiltration pits to reflect the full collected runoff area. Azzelina also explained major‑soil permit financial obligations applicable when more than 400 cubic yards are moved: a refundable deposit itemized in the report and an additional fee (report referenced a later fee calculation based on the code), plus an engineering inspection fee.
Neighbors raised concerns about historic runoff and erosion in the area. Virtual commenter Nicholas Farfalle, a nearby homeowner, described persistent drainage problems behind his property tied to earlier development on adjacent lots and said a large tree recently uprooted; he urged the board to consider long‑standing erosion when approving further work. The engineer and counsel responded that the subdivision’s original stormwater infrastructure and current erosion‑control plans are designed to handle the design storm and that the applicant previously tested soils when earlier exports occurred and found no contamination. The applicant also agreed to perform soil testing if the board makes it a condition.
The board discussed whether to require additional soil testing for exported fill or testing for future import; members agreed that testing of exported material was not required by default but that testing could be required in a resolution if the board desired. The board also noted that the developer controls most of the adjacent lots, which lessens the risk of incompatible grading, and that state and county erosion‑control measures would apply.
After closing public comment, the board moved to approve the soil‑movement and grading application with the conditions and permit steps described in the engineer’s report (including filing for the major soil permit and providing required fees and inspection arrangements). The approval was recorded by roll call.
