Petitioners unable to stall project
BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer

UPPER FREEHOLD - Despite two petitions, the Planning Board granted preliminary approval for a nine-lot subdivision on Burlington Path Road last week.

The board voted 5-2 during its meeting on March 27 to approve the Boston Properties development at 65 Burlington Path Road. Board members Jennifer Coffey and Richard Bullock cast the dissenting votes.

Richard Osborn, who lives across the street from the proposed development, presented the board with a petition signed by 60 neighboring residents opposing the construction of a new road leading from Burlington Path to the Boston Properties site.

"We further request that the Planning Board consider a safer, environmentally compatible and more prudent approach via an existing roadway from Jonathan Holmes Road, through Jewel Estates, to the base of the proposed development," the petition stated.

The document also stated that Burlington Path has a higher volume of traffic than Jonathan Holmes Road and alleged that the new road would intersect Burlington Path at a low side of a rise, creating a traffic hazard for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

According to the petitioners, the new road would traverse a very steep grade, create a dangerous intersection and traverse the north side of a ridge through a heavily wooded area prone to wet and icy conditions.

"The new road would dramatically alter the landscape in an area designated by Upper Freehold Township as a scenic byway," the petition stated. "The new road would negatively impact wildlife in their natural habitat. The new road would contribute to soil erosion and exacerbate conditions in a wet area."

The petition further stated that using the existing road, Cutter Court, which is on the south side of the ridge and is drier and safer, would avoid the aforementioned complications.

Osborn further stated that an American Indian dwelling once existed on the flat portion of the property and suggested that Boston Properties consider putting the land into farmland preservation.

Jewel Estates residents presented their own petition to the board. Signed by 20 residents, the document stated that extending Cutter Court would have a detrimental impact on the safety and welfare of the families in their development.

The second petition noted that Jewel Ridge is currently a single-access development with a loop road system. Approximately 45 children live in the development and ride their bicycles, roller skate, and play freely there because it is safe, according to the second petition.

The second petition alleged that extending Cutter Court would cause increased traffic flow through the development, and encourage speeding through the development because extending the road would make it a long, straight road, the document stated.

The second petition also took issue with construction traffic the project would create.

"The prospect of several years of construction traffic moving in and through the development would further risk the children not only from a traffic standpoint but from an overall safety perspective," the second petition stated.

The second petition further stated that Jonathan Holmes Road was recently rebuilt and repaved at significant expense to the township.

"Allowing heavy construction vehicles to travel on Jonathan Holmes Road and then through the recently paved development would potentially damage these newly reconstructed roadways," the petition stated.

Michael Balint, Boston Properties' attorney, said modifications to the subdivision plan were made as a result of public comments at the Planning Board's Feb. 27 meeting. He noted that the only variance the project requires is one that would permit a garage on an existing house lot to be located in the front yard rather than in the rear, due to the road configuration.

The applicant's traffic engineer, James Kochenour, testified that the road design in the subdivision meets all current engineering standards. He said the grade of the new road would be 9 percent, and that the state Residential State Improvement Standards allows a maximum grade of 12 percent. He also quoted other road engineering standards, all of which he said allowed maximum grades above what his client is proposing.

The sight distance from the new road and the Burlington Path intersection would be 1,500 feet from the west, and in excess of 1,000 feet from the east, according to Kochenour.

When asked if he looked into the possibility of bringing traffic out through Cutter Court to Jonathan Holmes Road, he said he could not see a reason to make that connection.

Walter Cartlidge, who lives next door to the proposed subdivision, said that a new road would mean additional maintenance costs to the township. He said that everyone who lives on the ridge in the area parks their cars at the bottom of the hill when snow is in the forecast.

"You can't get up to the house with a vehicle until someone plows it," he said.

A former state trooper, Cartlidge said that from experience he knows that creating an intersection where one is not needed eventually causes problems.

"On a foggy day, cars come over the hill at a high rate of speed," he said.

Cartlidge said the area is a natural watershed, and when it rains, water comes down the ridge like a river. He alleged that taking down trees and cutting a roadway into the ridge would "totally alter the aesthetic value of the area."

Cartlidge said the proposed subdivision is an extension of the existing Jewel Ridge development, which is why the Planning Board put in a stub roadway when they approved the Jewel Ridge application.

Jeff Ferrier, a Jewel Ridge resident, said that traffic would increase through his development by 30 to 40 percent if the roadway was extended there.

Burlington Path resident Scott Musich said the question is which location for the roadway would have the least environmental impact.

"It doesn't make sense to me to take all the trees down and affect the environment," he said.

Balint said the project was not designed in a vacuum. He said there had been a number of meetings between his client's professionals and those of the township.

"The road is designed to function safely," he said. "We'll put in a sign that the intersection is approaching at the top of the ridge."