HOW TO BUILD ON SLOPES

Skyline Ridge Luxury Condos on Wilson Rd. Springfield, NJ: A Monument of Corruption dedicated to President Obama’s EPA Chief Lisa P Jackson, Governor Jon Corzine, Judge Anzaldi and Judge Malone by Springfield & Union County Democrats headed by a Thug Philanthropist Ziggi Wilf of Minnesota Viking Team and Wilf & Silverman Law Firm in New Jersey.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37407895@N02/3462913292/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37407895@N02/3462032617/

HOW TO BUILD ON SLOPES
When construction has to be done on steep slopes, Site analysis studies include:

Recommended maximum site ground disturbance;

http://www.cityofgigharbor.net/html/slopes.html

if you have data relevant to any of the above factors, you may use it to prove how harmful construction will be, for example, if the area is prone to earthquakes-low seismic stability, that means very dangerous and accident prone

Steep slopes are prone to erosion if the vegetation on them is disturbed, or if surface runoff is directed toward them. As a result, disturbed slopes often result in siltation of a watercourse or disturbance to land below. Hydrologic functions such as infiltration, frequency and volume of discharges and impacts of the proposed development upon water resources on and off site, must be considered.
Development on steep slopes requires special techniques to prevent soil erosion and to protect water resources. A study of ground and surface water flows of the site may be required to understand possible on- and off-site impacts of a proposed development on the water resources. Landscape work on these sites should be designed to restore native ecologies, to reduce storm water runoff, to enhance infiltration, to increase flood storage capacity, to allow only clean water to exit the site, and to honor natural linkages and natural areas and adjacent water features. Soils must not be permitted to wash from these sites under any circumstances.

The site’s design should incorporate the slopes so that the development complements the character of the landforms, vegetation and topography. Any development must meet all the standards for any other natural features of the site.
http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/communityservices/Planning/Planning/codes/Slopes%2057-%20NFOC4-28-05.pdf

STEEP SLOPES

Steep slopes are generally defined as land with a slope angle of 20% or greater for a minimum of 30 feet horizontally. These slopes are becoming increasingly popular for home sites as the valleys and flat lands in Utah are lost to development. These steep slopes may make for dramatic home sites, but they also pose problems. Steep slopes are prone to natural disasters, are often expensive to build on, and expensive to maintain. Most likely, they are of aesthetic value to the community below as well (City of Nanaimo 3 Dec. 2004).

Slope failures, erosion, or avalanches may not be as spectacular as tornadoes or earthquakes, but they are usually more widespread. Financial losses from these mass movements of earth and snow are costly. They include not only the direct costs associated with property damage, but also indirect costs such as loss of tax revenues, reduced real estate values, and degraded water quality (Gray 1996). Also, development on steep slopes is often susceptible to wildfire and may be expensive to defend if necessary.

Construction on steep slopes is costly. The costs associated with the cut and fill, earthwork, retaining walls, erosion prevention, etc., is often prohibitive. In cases where cost is not an issue, the maintenance of roads and utilities must be addressed. Cities and towns may be left holding the bill for maintenance costs unless prior arrangements with developers and homeowners have not been made.

It is hard to place an economic value on the aesthetic value and visual quality of steep slopes. If development is to be allowed on steep slopes, care should be taken not to disturb natural scenic features such as cliffs or rock outcroppings. The design of buildings should compliment the natural surroundings and should be placed as to minimize the visual impact (City of Nanaimo 3 Dec. 2004).
Houses built on steep slopes are prone to damage from slope failure.
http://www.governor.utah.gov/planning/CriticalLands/Critical%20Lands%20PDFs/steepslopes.pdf

Land use practices, including forest management and construction of highways, homes and power lines can affect landslide occurrence in unstable terrain.

http://www.forestry.org/or/position/landslides.php

FOR ZYGMUNT WILF NOTHING MATTERS HE CAN BUILD ON ANYTHING. NO STUDIES WERE DONE AS RECOMENDED.

Estimate of storm drainage for preconstruction, during construction and post construction;
Methods to minimize erosion and storm water runoff from site during and after construction;
The seismic stability of the site.

RESIDENTS OF SPRINGFIELD ON THE FRAUD BY WILF

OBJECTOR NINO DEL MAURO 238 BALTUSROL WAY Aug. 2, 2000

“I PLAN OF FIGHTING THIS THING AS FAR AS IT HAS TO BE FOUGHT. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANY BUILDING ON MOUNTAIN TOP AT ALL.”
It is costing an enormous amount of money to fight this thing because I am so dead against it. It is devastating, it is an extreme Project. From my understanding from my lawyer BRUCE M PITMAN and Engineer LEE that I have hired, “They tell me this thing is built on 50% of a slope that should not be.” I remember 20 years ago that thing was shot down because of SLOPE. It is three storeys that they want, it is overpopulated. They want to put 100 Families on 8 Acres. If some one has a Party up there, where they will park? There are no streets up there. There was a statement in STAR-LEDGER that New Jersey is probably the most densely populated State in the Union.

Mr. Bruce Pitman persuaded this man Mr. Mauro in 2005 not to fight against the Development Proposed by Zygmunt Wilf and K & K Developers, Inc. The terms and details of the Release are a secret. Counsel Pitman has failed to provide any documents to the plaintiff despite the request for the same made to his client K & K Developers on March 30, 2006 along with the demand to Answer Interrogatories by Counsel Pitman himself as well as a Certificate under oath from Nino Del Mauro on the terms and details of Release to counsel pitman and his reasons for not opposing the proposed Development by Zygmunt Wilf and K & K Developers, Inc.

OBJECTOR MARILYN STIGLITZ RESIDENT 232 BALTUSROL WAY 05

“I did like to direct this statement to you, MR.PITMAN. If your memory serves you, when you represented the residents of Baltusrol Way some five years ago in the Pinnacle matter, we had an environmentalist, we had an arborist and you probably still have the Reports. I remember how you were concerned about the wild life on the mountain, the deer, the turkey, the red fox and others. Also, the arborist spoke at length regarding the aesthetic value of the trees in our area and now the tables have turned and all this is of no consequence. Do you have any comments on that?

PITMAN: Yes, I do. The only person I represented was someone named Nino Delmor-

STIGLITZ: AND I PAID YOUR BILL.

PITMAN: You never paid me.

STIGLITZ: WELL, I PAID HIM. ($8000.00 to Nino Del Mauro for PITMAN.)

PITMAN: Well, I don’t know what you did with him.

STIGLITZ: I KNOW AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU DID WITH HIM.

CHAIRMAN COLANDREA: This is not the place.

STIGLITZ: OKAY. THAT’S MY MISMASH.

CHAIMAN COLANDREA: You go to his office and beat him up tomorrow.

STIGLITZ: No way. Then there is another quote. Here’s a quote for Mr. Mullman at the candidate’s night last night speaking at the town of Springfield. Quote, we will not give up our small town orientation for big business. PUTTING A BUILDING TWO FOOTBALL FIELDS BIG ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN WITH NO VEGITATION for all to see from 78, that’s giving up small town orientation. That’s my comment.

CHAIRMAN COLANDREA: Thank you. Any one else like to come up and say some nice things. (Colandrea had full knowledge Stiglitz paid money for Pitman)


OBJECTOR BELLA LIPTON RESIDENT 251 BALTUSROL WAY

“He (Gene Consales owner of Lots) wants Variances so that he can make a killing. He has tried for 16 years…and I have verification if you want to see all the Newspaper Accounts to build various developments of different heights.” For 16 years Mr. Consales is applying for Variances one way or the other, different types, different developers in his effort to develop- but he does not want to do it in conformance with the Zoning Laws of this community. I am convinced that if this Board were to look into the history of this man’s request for variances you would see that things never changed. They may take different forms, they may take different request for different types of Variances but they all lead to same conclusion. He does not want to comply with the Zoning Board Requirements in this community. “He tried through Mount Laurel to get variances to build his development, and they turned him down because he was not in conformance with the laws. The property was too steep and would require too much blasting.” AUG. 2, 2000

OBJECTOR TO K & K DEVELOPERS, INC. SEP. 7, 2005

TO BOARD: Has any one considered the negative precedence that this type of construction and the granting of the variances would mean to Springfield?

It would change the character of our small town to mini-Manhattan because it doesn’t stop with this construction. Builders and developers are waiting to see what the decision of this board will be. If they can’t build this way, they can build this way; existing structures are not going to be exempt.

It seems to me that a lot of studies have not been completed. We have not had a traffic flow study. What about the amount of trees and vegetation that would have to be removed? We have not had an ecological study figuring air pollution and dislocation of wildlife.


Variances should not be granted arbitrarily, there should be a good reason to grant them, and I plead with this planning board to consider the people of Springfield first.

Chairman Colandrea: Thank you, any one else?


OBJECTOR MARC MARSHALL FORMER BOARD MEMBER Sep. 6, 2000

“FOR MORE THEN 5 YEARS I SAT WHERE YOU ARE SITTING NOW CONSIDERING THE ISSUE THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING. THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS THAT WE JUST CAN NOT DEVELOP IN THIS KIND MANNER. THIS IS ONE OF THEM. RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE PLAYING WITH DISASTER.”

Storms of record strikes Sussex and Essex County in Aug. 1999 and they devastate two communities. When we examine the reasons for some of those disasters that occurred there, it is because CRITICAL SLOPES were disturbed. Critical Slopes are areas that will devastate you down the line. We have to deal with and we will have to pick up the pieces of any disaster that is created because we did not have the foresight and the courage to say there are certain areas that we just can not develop and this is one of them. It is incumbent upon each of you to look at that and to listen to your neighbors, to hear what they are telling you, and recognize the fact that we are dealing with situations that we are going to have to live with once it’s disturbed for years to come.

OBJECTOR & FORMER MEMBER GREG CLARK 119 TOOKER AVE. SEP. 7, 2005

“I think some people take Variances more lightly as they are predictors of what happen to our town. This particular vote is extremely important if you care about the character of Springfield. Only thing we have protecting us as Citizens of Springfield are the Zoning Ordinances, I ask you to think very deeply before you make any decision.” Mr. Clark in 2000 voted against Pinnacle as Board Member.

VINCENT DEGAETANO 59 HAWTHORNE AVE. SEP. 7, 2005

“I don’t live anywhere near Baltusrol Way but I do have a couple of questions and a comment. Gene Consales is the owner and potential seller of that property (198 Baltusrol Way) which will enable you to build on the Top. The last application for this site was Pinnacle. Mr. Pitman was the advocate against it and you turned it down, obviously for the variances that they wanted. You have the same situation here where you have certain amount of Building Codes that have to be adhered to. And as Mayor Clark said, if you let this one slip, there’s more right behind it to get it. You’re not all going to be sitting on this Board forever so if this goes there’s a precedent, so I’m voicing my objection to this petition and I thank you.”

EUGENE DROOD 2 SHARON RD. SEP. 7, 2005

“I would like somebody to tell me why we need variance. Building, the space is there, units can be built on it in compliance with the Code. What do we as citizens of Springfield gain by giving a Variance so that instead of 30-some-odd units we can build 90-some-odd units? What do we gain by this?”

CHAIRMAN COLLANDREA IGNORED THESE RESIDENTS, ONE HAPPENS TO BE HIS FORMER MAYOR & HIS COLLEAUGUE, WHO SPOKE ONE AFTER ANOTHER. THE ENTIRE BOARD WAS WEARING ZYGMUNT WILF ON THEIR EYES, EARS, BRAINS WITH THEIR HEARTS PUMPING FOR MORE MONEY & PROFITS FOR ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALIST WILF.

LEWIS STIGLEY RESIDENT 232 BALTUSROL WAY

I am a master gardener, and I can’t see how a tree can survive in 18 inch of soil. (Trees along Retaining Walls) Once the soil rots, a tree is going to die. Who is going to turn around and change all these trees when they die in two to five years after they hit all this Rock? Did you ever hear what they call permafrost in Alaska? The ground only freezes 12 inches. Somebody thought they’d have an idea of turning around and growing high trees for Christmas. The trees only got four feet high. These trees are never going to reach maturity of 70-80 feet that I will not be able to see them. They are going to wind up dying, and they are not going to get to the full potential of their height.

Now, I can’t see how you are going to turn around and say that this is a legal thing to do. I think we are all - - we all are against this because “This is the last beautiful place in Springfield a gorgeous Mountain and you are going to blast 25-60 feet Top of the Mountain.” What we are going to have, high-rise buildings that look like AT&T with walls and fences. It is going to look like a Concentration Camp with walls around - - what do you call it - - catch basin and walls with fences on top of walls. I think this is going to look ugly. I mean, I do even think the Environmentalists even wants to see this. This is a beautiful area. Why do you want somebody to destroy it? If you let them destroy it we have to live with it for the rest of our lives and the town has to live with it. So you better decide the right thing for the town and for the people in this area. 9-6-00


ED BERTALOTTI 200 BALTUSROL WAY PINNACLE & K & K

There is a lot of loose rocks on that hill right behind Baltusrol Way. My house is right in front of the slope there and it’s all this rock. We are concerned that the blasting may cause vibrations that cause this rock to fall and cause a small landslide. Aug. 2, 2000

My kitchen is 21/2 feet from the base of the slope. That slope is all loose rocks and dirt. We get small avalanches when a deer walks by. Sep. 6, 2000

Blasting is going to make it any more unstable. I see rocks falling down the hill all the time, so how would the vibrations from this blasting affect all that loose rocks? We are concerned about runoff because our house is at the base of the hill and it slopes down so we have a big problem with runoff now, with erosion of the lawn and erosion of the driveway. Sep. 7, 2005 (OBJECTOR TO K & K DEVELOPERS, INC

My house is the closest to hill. That hill is made of loose rocks falling all the time for no apparent reason. There’s no blasting going on and there’s no construction going on and there’s no animal up there, anything. Rocks just fall.

I’ve been planting bushes and building rock walls there to try and keep those rocks from bouncing too far towards my house and my vehicle. I’m confident that this blasting - - you say I can feel it. I’m confident it’s gonna dislodge a lot of those rocks and send them rolling down that very steep hill towards my house and my children if they are outside playing. You guys are gonna blast that apart at risk to me and my home. Oct. 20, 2005

I’m not worried about the small rocks. They can do minimal damage. I am worried about a big chunk of that hill coming off and doing some serious damage to my home and even if it didn’t hit my home, what am I going to do with it, a five hundred pound rock sitting in my driveway. NOV. 2, 2005 RESIDENT OBJECTOR

CHRISTINE BORIS RESIDENT 300 WILSON RD. IN 2000

“Your access road behind Wilson Rd. is loud. It’s a disaster. So I would like to know that what you are going to do for the people that live at Baltusrol Gardens in order to protect our privacy and our environmental concerns.” Aug. 2, 2000

Planner Baumgartner: The Entrance Road we are proposing is in between two Retaining Walls that are along between our road and the same property at the existing location but it will be about 20 feet below your property line. MORE BLASTING, MORE EXCAVATION AND MORE DAMAGE TO HILL.

MS. BORIS TO THE BOARD: “I am concerned about the blasting. After they are finished with the project what resources do we have if our foundations crack, if part of us becomes rubble? We are vulnerable. And I have always been naïve enough to think politicians are to protect the most vulnerable. You put yourself in Mr. Del Mauro’s home or my home on Wilson Rd. that is going to be directly in view of what is going on there for probably 3 years. Would you be satisfied with what they said and I know they can’t give guarantees. But when you are gone and they are gone, we are still living in the community. So I need for you to think about being in our position, in our homes and if you are living in those places that are most vulnerable. That’s how you should make your decision.” Sep. 6, 2000

CHAIRMAN COLANDREA: GAVE NO RESONSE OTHER THEN “THANK YOU.”

OBJECTOR RESIDENT EUGENE DROOD & K & K PLANNER BURGIS

JOSEPH BURGIS: Code permits up to 16 units to the acre and we are eleven units to the acre. Code permits up to 25% building coverage, we are only at 14 percent building coverage. Code permits up to 50% impervious coverage and we are only 32% coverage. Code permits 35 foot building height and that’s what this structure is, it’s a 35-foot building height. So consequently whether we’re two stories or three stories, the building height would remain the same. We do not comply to the code; the extent to the intrusion into steep slope is rather nominal. On the issue of the precedential value of an approval here, the lawyers in this room will tell you that case law has clearly indicated that there is no precendential value associated with one development application’s approval and how it relates to the next application. Each and every application has to stand on its own merits.

EUGENE DROOD: You say that law doesn’t require you to list benefits by changing the Variance-by granting the Variance, but it is still something that can change the character of the town. I’m on the corner, my house faces one street and somebody says why not put a house in the back yard facing the other street? Well, a variance like this can make me think about it. I can make a lot more money by having two houses there than one, but the code says that I have to have a minimum, I think it’s a third of an acre. Well, I can come in and ask for a Variance and say I would like to put a house on the back yard.

RESIDENT OF 2 SHARON RD. OBJECTOR TO K&K SEP. 7, 2005

ROBERT ROSENER 230 BALTUSROL WAY SEP. 6, 2000

ANOTHER PROBLEM, MR. TOBIA (PLANNER FOR PINNACLE) ON THE PLANNING BOARD, THE ZONING BOARD OR SOMETHING. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THERE IS AN AWFUL CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE PEOPLE AT PINNACLE AND THE BOARD. WHICH COMES FIRST, MR. TOBIA’S POSITION WITH THE TOWNSHIP OR THAT?

CHAIRMAN COLANDREA: 1992.

ROSENER: That’s when the Zoning Ordinance was changed. (to accommodate property in question) That seems a little suspicious there. I would like to wind up with you a commentary that Paul Harvey made on the radio on Aug. 8—Aug. 5th about noon time. He said that “THE BUILDERS HAVE GOTTEN SO RICH THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY BUY LOCAL BOARDS.” I HOPE IT’S NOT TRUE IN THIS TOWN.

CHAIRMAN COLANDREA: I think the mere comment of “I hope it doesn’t exist here” implies—I think is completely out of line. I think an apology should be in order. And I don’t accept the applause for a comment like that. I have sat here for 33 years, and if there was any corruption here I would know.

ROSENER: I’ve been here 66 years.

CHAIRMAN COLANDREA: I have been in town longer than that. I’ve been sitting on the board for 33 years. I am surprised you would make a comment like that. I accept your apology. Anybody else to be heard? We are not here to be abused, so be kind.

FACT IS MR. ROSSNER NEVER OFFERED ANY APOLOGY.

IN 2005 ALSO HE FOUGHT HARD AGAINST K & K DEVELOPERS ALSO.



OBJECTOR ROBERT STIGLEY 232 BALTUSROL WAY

“This is the last beautiful place in Springfield a gorgeous Mountain and you are going to blast 25-60 feet Top of the Mountain.”

BOTH GENTELMEN FOUGHT IN 2005 ALSO BUT THEIR OPPOSITION WAS BULLDOZED AND IGNORED BY BOARD.

CERTIFIED TOWN PLANNER'S COMMENTS

PROFESSIONAL PLANNER WARREN BENDIXEN
OBJECTOR AGAINST
K & K DEVELOPERS, INC. & ZYGMUNT WILF IN 2005:

RETAINING WALLS: When they are attached to the building they are considered as part of the building for the purpose of bulk requirements. This Wall is a structure not a fence, 13-14 feet high almost the height of the lights. Some 20 feet high, some 15 all four of them Up High. Down Baltusrol Way to Norwood, Down to Eaton Pl. Whole mountain Top becomes a Solid Masonry Wall with no Trees. Massive Wall 670 feet long by 37 feet high from the grade visible from areas throughout the County and with in the community. That will include height limitations. Here violation exceeds more then 10% which would put this Project into the Board of Adjustments rather then this Board.
NON-CRITICAL COVERAGE: This development would cover 95% of the Non-Critical portion of the Lot. My calculation 95% because you have got Roads in that. You have got Driveways. You have got Walls. And this is not even including the Area that the show off to build those Retaining Walls. This is more then allowable 80% as per town ordinance. No request for this Variance.
HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING: Average height of the building is 45.5 feet which is greater then 10% of 35 feet allowable with variance is a violation. Which would put this project into the Board of Adjustments rather then this Board. This is a different question Board would have grant a Variance of that sort?
32 UNITS IN ONE BUILDING TOWN ORDINANCE: Ordinance’s limit to a maximum of 32 Units per building. What would be the purpose or purposes of a restriction such as that?
Strictly for the scale. To keep the buildings to a smaller elements. Separation of 35 feet from next building, to give softer looks and more landscaping.
ENTRY ROAD: Entry Road slope is 14% and RSIS standard is 10% with an allowable increase of 2%. This should have required Waiver from the Board. No waiver was requested to the Board.
BUILDING: 670 Feet long with top of the building 54 feet above grade in the northerly end, 77 feet above grade at the southerly end and 39 feet above grade in the center. A Project standing by itself on a hill stripped of natural landscaping. Urban sprawl, degradation of environment through improper use of land. There are areas in the building that are 4 storeys high and 5 stories high will change the whole character of Springfield. Because of the height and length of the building there will be shadow cast because of the westerly sun into that whole area to the south.
THIS BOARD WILL BE CHASTISED SHOULD THIS PROJECT BE BUILT.
Master Plan 35: 30 1 A: The proposed Building would relate harmoniously to the natural features of this Site and other substantial structures in the vicinity that have visual relationship to the Proposed Building.
“Anything that would Develop this Site would improve this Site and certainly a CONFIRMING PROJECT would do that.
PLAINTIFF: Confirming project is a Yoga Center or a Center for Gifted Children or a Children’s Park with small single storey buildings fully confirming with the ordinance; Building should maintain Colonial Character of Springfield. Various sections of the ordinance and also in the Master Plan refer to this Character that should be maintained in the Planning of Any Building within these areas.”

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER'S COMMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER BRYANT VANDERGHEYNST OBJECTOR FOR BALTUSROL GOLF CLUB IN 2005

Majority of the Municipalities throughout the State of New Jersey and throughout the Country Heavily Regulate Development in Steep Slopes. In fact the regulations have actually intensified in recent years even with the implementation of more stringent storm water management controls and slow standards. Even the State of New Jersey now Prohibits Development of Slopes greater then 20% in Highland Areas. The obvious reasons are that structural storm water management measures and slow erosion measures are not always adequate and responsible low impact development is now understood to be the best preventive and protective measure. The low impact development which is identified in RSIS and is emphasized in RSIS list of 9 low impact techniques. They are 9 nonstructural storm water management strategies that must be incorporated into site design to the MAXIMUM extent practicable.
To protect areas that provide water quality benefits or areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediments loss and once again it is not a fluke that Municipalities throughout the State and the Country Regulate Developments in these Areas. Construction or development on Steep Slopes can lead to increased erosion, sedimentation of downstream branch resources, degradation of surface water quality, land slides and slope failures and these are all extremely valid reasons for their protection. In addition many Agencies protect Steep Slopes for their aesthetic benefits and for wildlife habitat benefits that they can provide.
Minimizing Land Disturbance begins during the Project Planning Phases by fitting the Development into the Terrains as opposed to Changing the Terrains (Slopes) to fit the Development.
ON PROPOSED PROJECT OF K & K and ZYGMUNT WILF:
The Slope Disturbances Proposed, the Rock Removal Proposed and the extent of Retaining Walls Required to Construct this Project that this Development does not fit into the Terrain. It is much too large for the Property and it Epitomizes the Concept of Changing the Terrain to fit into the Development.
By allowing the applicant to disturb 7 times the permissible Disturbance Level for the 25% and higher grade Steep Slopes is in direct conflict with the goals of STEEP SLOPES ORDINANCE. Board must adhere and enforce the ordinance requirements for STEEP SLOPES there by protecting their sensitive areas and preserving the Trees situated on these slopes.

PLAINTIFF:
Proposed Development by K & K and Zygmunt Wilf is facing the NATIONAL MONUMENT “BALTUSROL GOLF CLUB”. This Golf Club organizes Mega World Events like PGA 2005 held in Aug. 2005 and U.S. Open Championship. If it is allowed this UGLY MASSIVE ALL MASONARY STRUCTURE WILL DAMAGE OUR NATION’S PRESTIGE IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD and may get us the Top Slot of “Corrupt Democracy in the World”

Marc Marshall Former Springfield Planning Board Member:
“There are certain Areas that we just can not develop in this kind manner. This is one of them. Recognize that we are playing with disaster.”

NJ CERTIFIED FORESTER'S COMMENTS

JOHN LINSON NJ CERTIFIED FORRESTER & TREE EXPERT OBJECTOR TO PINNACLE IN 2000


JOHN LINSEN: WITH THIS PROJECT ECHOSYSTEM WOULD BE MOST AFFECTED. MOST AFFECTED BE THE RESIDENTS OF BALTUSROL WAY LIVING DOWNHILL FROM THE PROJECT because essentially you are cutting off 35% of the water supply to those trees in the Critical Slope Areas. Residents of Baltusrol over the next 2-3-4-5 years will be struck with lot of dead trees.
Zoning Ordinance 604.2A “Natural features should be preserved wherever possible.” Section C refers to “Conscious Efforts made to preserve Existing Vegetation on the site and then Landscaping provisions in Section 604.1, Section A, it just basically says that landscaping should be designed to improve esthetics, buffering, climatological environment, ornamental and similar features.
Trees and Landscaping planned to buffer the proposed development there is no substance between the bottom of the Hill and Top of the Hill, that is going to provide much buffering. The buffering area left by the applicant between the perimeters of the property consist of plant growth that provide no buffer, the decreased run off because of the construction will hasten the demise of the larger older trees. These are Critical Slopes it is just hard to get something to grow there. It is hard to maintain something on that and there is difficulty in moving on these Critical Slope Areas.
Combine height of the Retaining Wall and the Building is so immense that nothing will really provide immediate visual remediation. The Trees proposed by the applicant will achieve (if they survive) desirable height of 15-20 feet in 25 Years.
WHATEVER IS THERE TRY TO SAVE IT. First try to exclude Deer from this Area, which is not easy. Next thing you must do “Not decrease any of the run off from the property. “SO THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD THAT WOULD NOT BUILD ON CRITICAL SLOPES.”
THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT A CONFIRMING PLAN because looking at the Critical Slope Areas things where it says, “Location of the Principal or Accessory Structure in Critical Slope Area shall be Minimized to the greatest extent practical and shall be pursuant to all state and federal regulations. A project 40% on Critical Slopes-you are Maximizing to the greatest extent practical, you are not minimizing the impact on the Critical slopes. IT IS A NON CONFIRMING PROJECT.


LINSEN APPEARED FOR COUNSEL BRUCE PITMAN 7-05-2000.

ENGINEER'S COMMENTS

ENGINEER CHUCK LEE OBJECTOR TO PINNACLE IN 2000

CRITICAL SLOPES IN SPRINGFIELD ORDINANCE: It is a Critical Area and within Critical area, critical slope is part of critical area. Also under the critical area, you have wet lands and stream encroachment, the other sensitive areas, that makes it part of the Critical Area. So Critical Slope is just part of the definition for Critical Area in Springfield Township. In this township anything with slopes over 15% grades is considered Critical Slope Areas.
SIGNIFICANCE OF CRITICAL AREAS FROM PLANNING & ENGINEERING:
Critical Slope Areas are sensitive slope areas, they are sensitive areas just like wetlands are sensitive, stream-flood planes are sensitive. Steep slopes are also sensitive areas and want to protect them because sensitive areas and steep slope sensitive areas have sensitive vegetations, which you want to protect. There is erosion problems, if you disturb them you will increase the erosion of the slope, so typically you want to protect them and try not to disturb them because Mother Nature does a very good job in stabilizing it and man-made structures generally does not have as much integrity as Mother Nature offers.
LOT 26 & 27 BLOCK 1105: On this property we are dealing with some Super Critical Slope Areas. Besides 15% grade slopes on this site you have 80% not 90% in some areas 100% grade slopes. 100% grade means it is one to one or 45 degree angel and we have those slopes around here. Residents of Baltusrol Way are close to 100% grade Critical Slope Areas. Some 100% slopes right along the areas in front of Wilson Rd.
HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AS PER SPRINGFIELD ORDINANCE: The building height in accordance with this ordinance is measured from the highest point of the building to the ground elevation on the bottom of the building wall. Front lot line in accordance with this ordinance is the line that follows the right of way of the street that the lot fronts on. In the case of Lot 26 & 27 Block 1105 will be Shunpike Rd. and Wilson Rd. So that right of way line will be the front lot line and the front set back will be measured off that right of way line from Shunpike Rd. and Wilson Rd.
Right of line is not the front yard is not in this courtyard area that the applicant proposes to construct. Bottom of the Retaining Wall to the Top of the Building will be the Height. “For K & K Developers it will be vertical 90 feet with this formula.”
DRIVEWAY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT: It will be very difficult to drive uphill at 12% slope and negotiating very closely along that curve that has a very steep embankment to the right and the Retaining Wall on the left. The driver may not be able to see too far ahead of him as to cars or pedestrians coming down the Hill. For emergency vehicles like Fire trucks or School Buses or things of that nature it will create substantial hazardous conditions in the sense that the driver may have to make a sudden stop in order to avoid a vehicle coming down. He may have to proceed very slowly, cautiously and coming up a 12% slope a heavy vehicle such as fire truck or school bus may not be able to regain his speed to negotiate Up the Hill again, so that’s why I’m little concerned. K & K DEVELOPERS, INC. & ZYGMUNT WILF ‘S PROPOSED DRIVEWAY HAS 14% SLOPE.
SAFETY OF THE PROJECT ON CRITICAL SLOPES: A Project which is 40% on critical slopes disrupts so much of Critical Areas with its Structures and Retaining Walls can not be safe. May lead to erosion and deterioration of the site.

CHUCK LEE WAS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL BRUCE PITMAN

WILF'S COUNSEL "NO CONSTRUCTION ON CRITICAL SLOPES"

IN 2000 BRUCE PITMAN WAS REPRESENTING THE RESIDENTS OF BALTURSOL WAY AGAINST A BUILDER.
IN 2005 BRUCE PITMAN WAS REPRESENTING BUILDER ZYGMUNT WILF AGAINST THE RESIDENTS FOR THE SAME LAND IN FRONT OF THE SAME BOARD MEMBER. DO’T YOU THINK IT IS CONFLICT OF INTERSET AND BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED HIM?
BRUCE PITMAN ESQ. MAKING A STATEMENT ON THE NATURE OF LAND IN LOT 26 & 27 BLOCK 1105 on Sep. 6, 2000
“If it (development) is granted, it’s going to establish a number of precedents and problems that this town will have to live with for a long time. You are going to have a structure 90 feet high not permitted under your ordinance, wholesale destruction of natural trees, green acres et cetera. What Mr. Marshall pointed out, you are establishing a precedent of massive INVASION INTO CRITICAL SLOPE AREA. Your ordinance that said, “There shall be no building in Critical Slope Area, shall be limited to which is minimally practical. If you allow 50% of the structure in Critical Slope Area it really violates even your existing ordinance.”
THE CRITICAL SLOPE ISSUE IS PROBABLY THE MOST MAJOR ISSUE ON THIS PROJECT. Your ordinance says that Building in the Critical Slope is to be Limited to the extent practical. If you allow ….then what’s big deal about Critical Slope Area? Why do we have any ordinance about it anyway? Is it meaningless, you have Critical Slopes in some cases what the Engineer called 100% almost straight up and down. They are being cut away, you are building on it, you are building over the Critical Slope Areas. If this is granted you are totally and completely disregarding that. Get rid of your Critical Slope paragraph, just get rid of it, you do not need it. It is absolutely okay to build not minimally, not to the extent practical but substantially within the Critical Slope Areas. If there is a disaster like Marc Marshall says there could be. That will happen five or ten or fifteen years from now. None of us will be around. If there was a purpose to the Critical Slope Areas as I understand it. There is a clear purpose for Critical Slope Areas. Then how can you permit 50-55% structures to be built in Critical Slope Areas? THIS WILL BE CLEAR VIOLATION OF CRITICAL SLOPE AREAS ORDINANCE.”
FOR ON GOING MASSIVE DESTRUCTION TO THE HILL AND THE SLOPES AROUND IT USE THE LINK BELOW TO SEE PICTURES:

FOR PICTURES
http://eshare.hpphoto.com/FilmStripHome.aspx?JobID=e6a11778-aca2-4904-80f6-f01b3e3a3290&IDKey=0&SKU=HP&isflag=ExternalLink&st=0&issku