Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves major soil-moving permit for 83 Gorger Place with drainage and tree-replacement conditions
Summary
The Township of Washington Planning Board approved a major soil-moving permit to allow construction of a single-family home with a pool at 83 Gorger Place, requiring the applicant to reduce the driveway to the ordinance maximum, follow the township engineer’s drainage recommendations and meet tree-replacement or in-lieu payment obligations.
The Township of Washington Planning Board on March 18 approved a major soil-moving permit for 83 Gorger Place (Block 1201, Lot 1.01), allowing the construction of a single-family home with a pool and associated site improvements.
Applicant counsel Jennifer Berardo told the board the owner is returning to the township to build on the vacant lot and introduced the applicant’s project team. The board heard technical testimony from the project engineer, Tyler Vanderbalch, who described the lot’s topography, the proposed driveway and garage layout, and site improvements.
Vanderbalch acknowledged an error on the submitted plans showing a front driveway width of 23 feet and said, “We will reduce that to 22 feet wide,” to meet the township ordinance. He described drainage measures intended to limit runoff to neighboring properties: the plan uses the 100-year storm-event standard and calls for three dry wells to collect roof and patio runoff and recharge it into the ground rather than discharge downhill. “So our goal is to continue to recharge despite the fact that we’re putting down hard surface,” Vanderbalch said.
The engineer’s report and board questions also covered earthwork and logistics: the application documents list 1,972 cubic yards of excavation, 262 cubic yards of fill, and a net export of 1,710 cubic yards of soil. Vanderbalch said the export is anticipated to be moved to Lot 1.05 across the street but that alternate receiving locations are available if scheduling requires them.
Township engineer Paul Anselina (as identified in the meeting attendance) flagged a number of checklist items the applicant must address before final permits are issued, including detailed retaining-wall structural review, a revised lower-courtyard recharge/chamber design, and verification of a building elevation line the engineer said may need a minor adjustment. The engineer and the board also discussed tree removals: the application would remove 17 trees and the township replacement schedule requires roughly 36 replacement trees; the applicant proposed on-site replacement where feasible and said it would make an in-lieu payment to the town’s tree fund (historically $400 per unit) for any shortfall.
The board and engineer discussed a performance bond estimate historically used by the township (about $85,000) and agreed the specific bond amount for this permit would be set after the applicant provides a final estimate that reflects soil movement, retaining-wall work and drainage improvements.
After public comment was opened for the application (no members of the public spoke), a board member moved to approve the application as amended to reflect the engineer’s recommendations and the corrected driveway width; the motion was seconded and members voted in the affirmative. The board chair announced the application was approved.
What happens next: the applicant must revise the plan to incorporate the township engineer’s outstanding items, submit final calculations for retaining walls and bonding, and coordinate a landscape plan that either meets the replacement requirements on site or provides the agreed in-lieu payment. The board recorded the approval and the applicant’s team thanked members before leaving the meeting.
