Town CrierWest Orange, New Jersey
← Back to search

Supporting Documentation · Nov 10, 2024

O28 Litwornia West Essex Highlands Traffic Report 82225 FINAL

Preserved file SHA-2561dff6f53c70e15a841d46a0d3ec32415c7cce4489ef672a06f4f3123ac001751

Indexed text · page 10

Show all pages
Page 10

Page 10 De Minimis Exceptions To obtain a de minimis exception, the RSIS states in Section 5:21-3.1 that a municipal approving authority may grant such de minimis exceptions from the requirements of the site improvement standards as may be reasonable and within the general purpose and intent of the standards, if the literal enforcement of one or more provisions of the standards is impracticable or will exact undue hardship because of the peculiar conditions pertaining to the development in question. To do this, the RSIS states in Section 5:21-3.1 (b), an application of an exception pursuant to this section shall be filed in writing with the municipal approving authority and shall include: 1. 2. 3. A statement of the requirements of the standards from which an exception is sought; A statement of the manner by which strict compliance with said provisions would result in practical difficulties; and A statement of the nature and extent of such practical difficulties. The applicant is not guaranteed a de minimis exception, and in this instance, the only justification is in the traffic report. The traffic report anchors its reasons for the granting of a de minimis exception to providing emergency access and utilization of existing roadways. The traffic report states that this de minimis exception is consistent with the intent of the act to provide for emergency access. This would also be true if the intent of the RSIS was to provide cul-de-sacs with large traffic volumes. The traffic volume proposed for this development would be 2.7 times (2.7x) what the RSIS standards are for a cul-de-sac and 4 times (4x) the amount of traffic at one point of a loop roadway. This is not a de minimis amount in our opinion, and should not be granted. The applicant has still not met the RSIS requirements. The applicant has not met or explained his need for: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Violating the width of the entrance way (divided roadway). Having loop road volumes over 750 vehicles at a single point. Violating the total volume of a Cul-de-sac since the other aspects of the RSIS are not met; this remains one large Cul-de-sac. Failure to provide the required EV charging stations. Failure to provide sidewalks on both sides of all the streets per RSIS requirements. Eagle Rock Avenue There are three problems with the intersection of Eagle Rock Avenue and Oval Road.

File revisions (1)