Burlington Path project causes some concern
Residents want applicant to address roadway, stormwater runoff issues
BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer

UPPER FREEHOLD - Burlington Path Road residents voiced their concerns last week about a nine-lot subdivision in their area.

The Planning Board decided at its Feb. 27 meeting to carry the subdivision application to its March 27 meeting so it could review more information about the project.

Vice Chairman Barry Wright ran this portion of the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest with Chairman Richard Stern.

Boston Properties wants to develop the property at 65 Burlington Path Road. The applicant's attorney, Michael Balint, said the tract is currently a horse farm.

According to Balint, the property has 270 feet of frontage on Burlington Path, with one existing farmstead and several outbuildings. He said an access road to the property would end in two cul-de-sacs.

Using the lot-averaging method, each lot in the subdivision would average 3.01 acres, which complies with the township ordinance, he said. Balint said his client is trying to preserve as much of the wooded area of the tract as possible and to maximize open space around the perimeter with conservation easements.

The only variance the project requires is one that would permit the garage on the existing house lot to be in the front yard rather than in the rear, which is due to the road configuration.

The applicant's engineer, Jeff Richter, said there are two basins planned for the project. The first would be adjacent to Burlington Path Road, and the other would be at the rear of the property.

The front basin would be capable of an 18-inch water depth, while the rear basin would have a depth of 2 feet 10 inches, according to Richter. The drainage meets all state Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS) and the new state stormwater requirements, he said.

Once the development is built, there would be less water flow off the property, according to Richter.

Mayor Stephen Fleischacker said that there is currently sheet runoff from the property during a rainstorm. He said development there would result in point discharge at full flow. Richter said the flow would be at a metered rate and would flow at off-peak times into the basins.

Jeff Ferrier, a resident of Jewel Ridge Estates, which is a development that backs up to the proposed subdivision, said that the pipe from the rear basin would go down Cutter Court in Jewel Ridge and drain into a stream near Jonathan Holmes Road. He said that basins in Jewel Ridge are owned by homeowners who must carry liability insurance and are responsible for mowing, removing sediment and keeping the outlet structure free of debris around the basins.

Another neighboring property owner, Walter Cartledge, said the land in question is very steep, and he is concerned about soil erosion.

"It's a natural watershed," he said. "A hard rain makes a stream flow through."

Richter also addressed concerns raised by an Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) inspection of the property. The EAC had questions regarding a septic system on one lot in a steep slope area, but Richter said the location of the septic is relatively flat.

Richard Osborn, who lives across the street from the proposed development, said the other houses around there were built on the top of the hill because the bottom of the hill did not perc.

According to Richter, the entrance road for the proposed subdivision would be in the same location as the existing driveway. He said there is not a sight distance problem on Burlington Path Road in either direction.

Board member Richard Bullock asked if the road could be brought up the hill, which he felt would result in a much better design. Richter said bringing the road up the hill would require cutting into the steep slope to make a curve.

Osborn suggested a switchback on the proposed road to reduce problems with vehicles such as snowplows going up the hill.

Cartledge noted that years ago, the neighboring driveway came straight down the hill and was a hazard.

"The cars going down the driveway went very quickly due to the steep grade and went onto Burlington Path without stopping," he said. "They are planning to take the improved driveway and make it a roadway with more houses and traffic."

Cartledge said the distance from his driveway to the proposed new roadway is only 73 feet.

"It may be the best plan for Boston Properties, but it is not the best plan for the community at large," he said.

Ferrier said homeowners in Jewel Ridge do not want the roadway in the new subdivision to join up with their development.

David Horsnall, also of Burlington Path, said that from a public safety viewpoint, it makes sense for the development to have access from both Burlington Path and Jonathan Holmes Road in the rear.

Another Burlington Path resident, Marc Covitz, said that the road is part of the county's Scenic Byway, and that the roadway and some proposed tree cutting would be a detriment to the byway.

Neighboring landowner John Herbst requested that a fence be placed between his property and the lots on the south end of the subdivision to protect his horses. He said he would like the fence to be either on the property line or as close to it as possible.

Wright said there are a number of subdivisions in the township where the builder has agreed to put up fences.

"We're not trying to protect the landowner from the horses," he said. "We're trying to protect the horses from the landowner."

Herbst said a fence would also keep debris from blowing across the property lines. He added that the soil there is black marl and water seeps right through the side of the ridge.

"The sewage from leach fields will come out as well," Herbst said.

Fleischacker said the burden is on the Planning Board to make sure it has a full understanding of the impact made outside the project area. He asked the applicant to give consideration to a design that would not cause vehicles to slide down the road.