Page 8 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • May 15, 2013 Mahwah Fire expert leery of house on landlocked lot by Frank J. McMahon A fire safety expert recently provided testimony to the Mahwah Zoning Board of Adjustment about the difficulties of fighting a fire in a single-family house proposed for a landlocked lot at the end of a driveway in excess of 1,000 feet leading from Midvale Mountain Road. If construction of the house is approved on that lot, the driveway would be built on an easement across a neighboring property to provide access from Midvale Mountain Road to the 3.39-acre undeveloped landlocked property. The subject property is located in a wooded area west of the Ramapo River and Ramapo Valley Road near the border of the Borough of Oakland. The lot has no frontage on or access to an approved road. Property owners Philip and Julia Filippone applied to the zoning board for a determination on whether their landlocked lot can be developed. Their application is opposed by James Venusti, the owner of neighboring property through which the driveway would be constructed. The board has been conducting public hearings on the Filippone application since early 2010. At the most recent public hearing, fire safety expert Mark Naylis spoke about the difficulty the fire department would encounter trying to get their vehicles up to this property due to the narrowness of the driveway and the grades the vehicles would encounter. He also spoke about the difficulty firefighters would encounter in trying to control a fire at a house on the landlocked property. He estimated it might take 20 to 25 minutes to reach the house and claimed that it only takes two to three minutes for a room to be fully engulfed by a fire, so there would be little chance to save anything in the building. He also said the fire would have to be fought from the outside because it would be too dangerous to send firefighters inside. According to Naylis, an active sprinkler system would be required in the entire building and that system would require an onsite supply of about 15,000 gallons of water. He said the system he would recommend for this building would only be intended to provide an opportunity for anyone inside to escape and not to extinguish the fire. He acknowledged, however, that no house in this area has sprinkler systems, including the Venusti house, and this potential situation exists for any house in that area. He described fighting a fire in this area of the township as “an exercise in futility” because the homes would be a total loss in the event of a fire. Thomas Ashbahian, an engineer, professional planner, and architect, also testified about the safety of the proposed driveway and its impact on the environment. He said there are significant steep slopes that would make it difficult to construct a safe driveway. He said the separation between the Venusti driveway and the proposed Filippone driveway would violate the township’s ordinance. He added that a vehicle exiting the Venusti driveway would not be cognizant of a vehicle traveling on the Filippone driveway. He also testified that the removal of 127 trees would negate the ability of the soil on top of the rock subsurface to be retained. Ashbahian said he was testifying on behalf of Venusti because, as a planner and an engineer, he believes the application is “an egregious violation of the township’s zoning ordinance” and is “far too intrusive to be in a conservation zone of the township” and to cross someone else’s property. Michael Kelly, the township’s engineer, countered Ashbahian’s testimony, in part. He said separation of the driveways is a site plan issue and does not apply to this application. He also pointed out that the state’s residential site improvement standards (RSIS) permit a driveway in excess of 1,000 feet in this zone and the RSIS supersedes the township’s ordinances. At a previous meeting, Matthew Fox, the Filippones’ engineer, testified about the proposed drainage system for the development. He told the board there would be 10 locations along the proposed driveway for storm water retention and two areas of seepage pits associated with the residential construction. Fox claimed that no ledge rock was found on the site and, even if solid rock were found at the location of the proposed water detention chambers, the soil could be made permeable to drain water over a 36-hour period. He also voiced his opinion that the number of storm water retention locations proposed for the site would be adequate to address the drainage requirements. Lisa Mahle-Greco of the Johnson Soils Company in Glen Rock, an engineering consultant who was accepted by the board as a civil engineer and geotechnical expert, was asked if the rocky condition of the soil in the area of the proposed driveway would permit the proposed water detention chambers to handle the drainage from the driveway work. After describing the rocky soil condition, she said she did not believe the system would permit runoff to seep into the ground. At that time, Kelly advised the board that if, during construction, the drainage system could not be installed, the applicant would be required to return to the board with an alternate drainage plan because the results of the drainage system must be proved before installation. Kelly said the efficacy of the drainage system is typically addressed during construction and, if necessary, it could be redesigned or the chambers changed. He said has never seen a situation where a drainage system could not be designed to work. Jeffrey Doolittle, a professional engineer for Venusti, supported Greco’s testimony, saying the purpose of the water detention chambers is to control the rate of the additional runoff so it remains at the rate that existed before any development on the site, allow the water to drain into the ground, and maintain water quality. “If the chambers are constructed in this location I don’t think they will do what they are intended to do,” Doolittle said. Douglas Chabrak, an expert in environmental science, also voiced environmental concerns about the Filippone (continued on page 19)