PB-17-08/Crestmont Country Club Amended

25. 26. 27. a. Impaired growth or development of remaining trees or shrubs on the property of the applicant or upon adjacent property - the Club employs experts to implement its tree management plan for onsite trees, and there was no indication that any offsite trees would be affected by the proposed improvements; b. Soil erosion, sedimentation and dust - the Applicant provided a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by Boswell Engineering dated May 16, 2017 which addressed this issue; c. Stormwater or drainage problems — the Applicant provided a Stormwater Management Report prepared by Boswell Engineering dated June 2017 which concluded “the stormwater management system for the proposed project will meet municipal, county and NJDEP requirements;” d. Significant diminution of the screening between existing or proposed buildings or roads on site and adjacent land or in the wooded aspect of the lot or site from any adjacent road — the testimony and revised plans indicated that only 9 trees would be removed in the wooded area within 75’ of the property line, and that replacement trees would be installed elsewhere subject to the review and approval of the Township Forester; e. Sewerage problems — the Overall Site Utility Plan prepared by Boswell Engineering dated May 16, 2017 indicated that the site is connected to a public sewer system and there was no indication that the proposed tree removal would have any effect upon sewage disposal; and f. Dangerous or hazardous conditions — the proposed site plan was for improvements to the clubhouse, parking lot, and a new utility trench, and the proposed tree removal would not create any dangerous or hazardous conditions either for Club members, visitors or for the public in general. Regarding parking both the Club President and Manager testified that parking is rarely a problem and that in the event additional parking is needed there is sufficient room on site to accommodate it and avoid spillover onto neighboring roadways or streets. The Board notes that the Applicant has extensive acreage and represented it would create added parking and/or valet service if an overflow event occurred. The Board is mindful of the “Complete Streets” policy set forth in the 2016 Master Plan Circulation Plan Element Amendment. This Board's Resolution §13-02 which recommended implementation of the Complete Streets

s mindful of the “Complete Streets” policy set forth in the 2016 Master Plan Circulation Plan Element Amendment. This Board's Resolution §13-02 which recommended implementation of the Complete Streets policy recognized certain exemptions would be necessary, including the “cost of accommodations is excessively disproportionate to cost of the project.” Here, Applicant has several hundred yards of street frontage and is making limited upgrades to its existing facilities. The Board finds that imposing a requirement for Applicant to install sidewalks along its entire street frontage would be unfairly cost prohibitive in relation to the improvements proposed. The benefits of the improvements would outweigh the detriments because the plan offers a better alternative to what the ordinance permits and would 9