Traffic, fire safety, variance dominate Franklin Court hearing

Franklin Court LLC presented elevations and a conceptual grading plan of an upscale development bound for block 1102, lots 1.04, 2, 9, and 11 at the Planning Board meeting of Dec. 4, 2019.

TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON—Planning Board members and residents questioned the testimony of an applicant traffic engineer at the second public hearing held via Zoom Oct. 5 for a 44-unit multifamily complex, plus two single family homes, off of Van Emburgh Avenue

Board members and residents also raised concerns about fire safety, a variance requested for reduced street frontage and landscaping to provide privacy and shield the proposed development from neighboring homes.

The hearing is to be continued Nov. 3 at 7:30 p.m.

Applicant Franklin Court Management LLC’s second hearing on its 44-unit multifamily, inclusionary project had been postponed from Aug. 18.

The proposed development includes seven on-site affordable units as part of the township’s affordable housing agreement. In addition, the developer has agreed to contribute $250,000 as a payment in lieu of affordable unit construction to the local Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

At its last hearing Aug. 4, Mayor Peter Calamari, also a Planning Board member, was told by board attorney Louis Lamatina that he should recuse himself from voting on the application to avoid an appearance of conflict of interest due to Calamari’s 2015 vote in favor of the township’s affordable housing settlement.

Traffic ‘not considered significant’

Applicant traffic engineer Betsy Dolan said that a traffic impact study done on the 44-unit apartment complex, and two single-family homes, showed “trip generation” for the multifamily development “was not considered significant” as it did not add up to 100 or more trips in one hour.

Dolan said the trip generation model showed that the new complex would produce five vehicles entering and 17 exiting during the peak 8–9 a.m. period and 17 entering and 11 exiting during the peak 5–6 p.m. period.

She said only if trip generation models — based on traffic engineer industry data — show that 100 or more vehicle trips are generated per hour should a further traffic study be undertaken.

All 44 luxury apartments will include two bedrooms, noted applicant architect Rob Larsen. He said the seven affordable units, which will be interspersed throughout the complex, will include one 1-bedroom unit, four 2-bedroom units, and two 3-bedroom units.

Dolan said that because her original traffic counts were done in December 2020 while traffic was down due to the pandemic, she used state Department of Transportation traffic data from 2012 and increased the numbers over a 10-year period.

She said Bergen County planners and engineers reviewed the traffic study and agreed that traffic concerns were “not a traffic volume issue but that widening of the (complex) driveway was an issue.”

She said that projected volumes of traffic “will operate at acceptable levels of service” and that a nearby intersection will accommodate anticipated traffic. She said traffic generated from the 44 rental apartments and two single-family homes was “not considered significant in terms of traffic generation.”

Township Planner Stan Slachetka, answering a question, said that though traffic may be an issue, “as you know it is a permitted use so you won’t be able to deny it solely on traffic.”

Several of the nine residents who spoke cited anecdotal observation of heavy traffic volume along Van Emburgh Avenue — a few for decades — especially during morning and evening rush hours, which some said extended for hours.

Others noted that it was difficult to pull onto Van Emburgh Avenue as sight lines were obstructed. However, Dolan said that was known and would be remedied.

Moreover, Dolan said, the applicant was not responsible for addressing existing traffic volumes. She repeatedly said that the county had reviewed and approved its traffic study, noting “it’s a nominal amount of traffic … and the county has approved the intersection.”

Member Leonardo Sabino noted that the traffic impact study did not take into account the 66 units approved at Viviano’s American Dream development (also on Van Emburgh Avenue) nor the eight single-family units planned on Gorga Place by developer 34 Maple LLC.

Fillmore Drive resident Darius Oggioni said that “you cannot see” when pulling onto Van Emburgh Avenue.

Steve Dinome of Hillsdale said that Van Emburgh often backs up to Langerfeld Road in Hillsdale.

Dinome questioned what the developer was doing to address traffic issues and said he felt traffic volumes were “underestimated by your traffic expert” and noted the applicant should address off-site traffic conditions.

Fire safety concerns

Questions had been raised about the turning radiuses required for the new, larger fire apparatus ordered. Applicant engineer Michael Pucci said that templates from the fire department were used to map out turning radiuses for fire vehicles on the site and both new fire vehicles could make the turns into and out of the complex and with room to spare.

Pucci said the vehicle templates used were for Pierce velocity aerial ladder truck and Pierce pumper truck, both apparatus on order for the department.

Several residents and board members were concerned that fire trucks would not be able to physically access two sides of the proposed 44-unit complex and applicant attorney Donna Jenkins said that was not an issue as fire equipment could not always access all sides of certain buildings.

One member wondered if lack of fire equipment access could lead to a potential lawsuit against the township Lamatina said that was not an issue for public discussion.

Members asked for more testimony from experts, including the fire chief, to determine whether lack of fire equipment access all around the building was a potential liability. “(It’s) certainly a question that needs to be answered,” Lamatina said.

Architect Larsen said that all apartments would be equipped with NFPA-13 sprinkler systems. He said the sprinkler system offers a greater number of sprinkler heads and “a lot more coverage in terms of sprinkler system design.”

Larsen said the building will comply with all life safety codes and the sprinkler system is “beyond what current New Jersey code is.”

Member Tom Sears, a councilman and volunteer firefighter, asked whether there was adequate water pressure for the sprinkler system and asked if the board members could review the Suez Water letter confirming system water pressure.

Pucci told Sears he emailed him a copy of Suez’s letter confirming 70 PSI in-line pressure and said that the applicant would install a pump if the pressure is not adequate.

One variance for two homes

Larsen said a variance was needed for frontage of the two proposed single-family homes on Fillmore Drive where 25 feet is proposed and code requires 100 feet. Township Planner Slachetka told him that for the board to cite a hardship for the variance, it needs to be based on “unique characteristics of the property … and have more specificity on what are the constraints on the property.”

Slachetka said the board must consider positive and negative before granting a hardship variance and the applicant needs to explain why the variance for the single-family lots “is a better plan alternative than a standard lot with adequate frontage.” He said the board needs to be “very clear what they are” before approving the variance.

Added Chair Brian Murphy, “This is a controversial application with residents and we need to make sure everything is addressed.” Lamatina noted the applicant must detail “the constraints that don’t allow you to have a variance-free plan.”