Zoning board approves conditions for ARCR property driveway after residents warn of runoff and emergency-access risks

The Zoning Board of Franklinville approved conditions for ARCR Properties LLC’s access to a landlocked lot after a public hearing in which neighbors urged stronger protections for drainage, emergency access and property rights.

The board’s action followed a superior court order that overturned the board’s prior denial and sent the matter back to the board “for the limited purpose of setting the conditions,” the board attorney said. Applicant counsel Ben Ozarkas, of Cooper Levinson, told the board the developer had worked with the board engineer to propose conditions intended “to ameliorate any negative impact the 10 foot frontage would have.”

Residents pressed for concrete safeguards during the public comment period. Lucas Coastfield, who said several residents have raised the issue repeatedly, asked whether a watershed feasibility study had been completed and warned that a “10 foot wide 900 foot impervious driveway, cleared lot, and proposed dwelling all will have a negative watershed issue” for downslope properties. Kimberly Henson, a directly affected homeowner, requested “a professionally engineered water runoff management plan…that ensures zero impact in water runoff onto my property,” along with a binding maintenance and liability agreement filed with the township and periodic in-person inspections during construction.

The applicant’s engineer described the proposed construction details the developer agreed to provide: a 6-inch dense-graded-aggregate subbase (DGA) with 2 inches of asphalt on top, a two-vehicle bypass area to allow passing, mailbox and address placement for clear sight lines, and grading to direct stormwater either to the road or back onto the lot. The engineer said the proposed pavement section “meets what the ordinance requires and is able to support 80,000 pounds.”

Board members and residents debated emergency-access standards. One commenter cited state guidelines recommending 12-foot clear width for many emergency vehicles and asked for a turnaround at the end of the driveway. The applicant and the engineer said the paved travelway proposed on the plan was 9 feet in the running section with wider passing areas and that the judge’s order limited the board to setting conditions — not reopening the underlying variance question.

After the public portion closed, the board moved to approve the applicant’s submission consistent with the judge’s order and the engineer’s recommendations, including the pavement section, the DGA base and the specified grade and passing area. The motion passed on a voice vote called by the chair with five members recorded as voting yes.

The board’s approval directed staff to incorporate the agreed conditions into a written resolution; the board did not reopen the variance itself. Next procedural steps are the formal resolution adoption and the applicant’s compliance with any county permits and the conditions the board recorded.