Planner and arborist present revised Odin Dunn subdivision plan; board carries hearing to March 4 for detailed tree plots and engineering

The Planning Board carried the hearing for the Odin Dunn subdivision (docket PLN2400007) to March 4 after hearing testimony from the applicant's attorney, an arborist and the project planner. The applicant presented a revised site exhibit (marked A3) that increases perimeter buffers and aims to preserve additional trees compared with the previously filed plan.

Attorney Tim Arch, representing Odin Dunn, said the applicant met with township professionals to revise the design to preserve more trees and that Menllo Engineering prepared exhibit A3 based on an arborist's field survey. "We do have an exhibit I believe which is going to be marked exhibit A3," Arch said when introducing the material to the board.

Arborist Matthew Wyel was sworn and described the tree inventory and report he prepared for the property. "I put a numerical tag on every tree 16 inches and larger, collected information on the species, diameter, [and] condition," Wyel said. He told the board he identified 140 trees 16 inches and larger, and that approximately 12.9 percent of that inventory were trees in such poor condition they should be removed; an additional 12.1 percent were invasive species he recommended removing. He said only four of the 140 large trees were in good condition and that many interior wooded areas were early-successional species such as black cherry and eastern red cedar.

Wyel confirmed Menllo Engineering used his inventory to prepare the exhibit and that the exhibit shows proposed new plantings intended to improve the post-development tree cover. The applicant said the north and south perimeters now have 40-foot buffers, the western perimeter a 25-foot buffer with an additional preserved bump-out, and that the changes were intended to preserve the majority of mature perimeter trees and reduce visual impact on adjacent properties.

Board members asked follow-up questions about the timing of the survey (Wyel said it was completed Dec. 12 and 15), the distinction between trees measured at 16 inches and larger versus smaller understory growth, and the effect of winter (dormant canopy) on visual assessment. Environmental-commission member Theodore Chase said he preferred clustering to preserve interior woodland but acknowledged the perimeter-buffer approach may preserve more large perimeter trees in this instance.

Planner Allison Coffin then testified about two requested bulk frontage variances for the corner lots and one technical variance for impervious coverage related to the private roadway. Coffin explained both the C1 (hardship) and C2 (flexible) variance standards under the Municipal Land Use Law and said the site's existing geometry and the 50-foot right-of-way with curb returns constrain the ability to provide the ordinance's required 200-foot lot frontages. "With the required 200 foot frontage, the 50 foot right-of-way for the road and the curb returns needed at the intersection, it is not possible for conforming lot frontages for these corner lots to be provided," Coffin said. The planner added that the lots meet other zone requirements and that the variances advance municipal purposes by enabling the permitted residential density while preserving open space and light and air.

Members discussed alternatives including eliminating a lot, realigning the private road or adjusting curb-return radii. The board asked the applicant to return with Menllo Engineering, a fully fleshed grading and stormwater plan, and a finalized tree plot showing exact tree locations overlaid with the proposed 40-foot and 25-foot buffers. Staff requested revised plans be submitted in time for a two-week review (plans due by Feb. 9 for the staff review cycle). The board agreed the March 4 meeting would include Menllo Engineering and the planner for formal testimony and recordation.

The board did not vote on any variances or approvals tonight; members emphasized they remain supportive of clustering in principle but will evaluate the actual comparative preservation outcome when the final engineering and tree plots are before them. The hearing was carried to March 4 at 7:30 p.m., with the applicant providing an extension letter to the end of March for the record.