Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks applicant to revise 2‑lot subdivision at 93 Old Tappan Road after safety, drainage and neighborhood concerns
Summary
The Planning Board continued the hearing on a proposed two‑lot subdivision at 93 Old Tappan Road, pressing the applicant on road width, RSIS waivers, a 4‑foot strip design tactic, stormwater basin maintenance and tree replacement; the board indicated it would require a 50‑foot right‑of‑way and asked for revised plans.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The planning board opened a continued public hearing on an application for a revised two‑lot subdivision at 93 Old Tappan Road. Applicant counsel Richard Abrahamson told the board the revision reduced the prior proposal to two single‑family lots with a dedication of a new public road and noted there was one bulk variance identified on the front lot. "For this 2 acre site, we propose 2 single family residences," Abrahamson said while summarizing the revised plans.
Neighbor counsel Dean Stamos challenged the variance notice and argued the filings may not reflect all required variances; he asked the board to require clearer variance language. The applicant's engineer described the proposed road geometry and three RSIS waivers (right‑of‑way width, sidewalk waiver and a curvature/radius deviation) and presented a bio‑retention basin designed to meet stormwater standards. Board professionals and members questioned a 4‑foot strip shown on the plan that would leave only a narrow frontage for one lot, raised concerns about long‑term maintenance if the basin were assigned to a homeowners association, and pressed emergency‑access and cartway width issues. After extended discussion the board signaled it would require a 50‑foot right‑of‑way and directed the applicant to revise the plans and return with updated exhibits and a consolidated list of waivers and variances. "We would require the street to be 50," the chair said, and the applicant agreed to amend the plan for the board's review.
The board also opened the testimony to limited public questions; no final vote was taken and the application remains continued pending revised submissions.

