Breton Woods Homes Proposal: Pavement Plan Remains Sticking Point

BRICK, NJ — The hearing on a proposal to build 59 homes on a 30-acre parcel in Breton Woods has been continued again, as the developer and Brick Township's professionals wrangle over a plan to use porous pavement in the development.

The Brick Township Planning Board agreed to carry the hearing to sometime in the new year after nearly three hours of testimony Monday night, all of it focused on the proposal by D.R. Horton to use porous pavement on the residential streets.

Porous pavement, also referred to as pervious pavement, allows rainwater to get absorbed into the ground through spaces in the pavement. Stormwater goes through the top layer of a special asphalt mix, then through special layers below the asphalt that filter it, before it is absorbed into the ground.

Leanne Hoffman, engineer for D.R. Horton, said she included the pervious pavement as part of the development's stormwater management plans because of changing stormwater management requirements at the state level. New rules published by the state Department of Environmental Protection earlier this year have increased requirements on municipalities for handling stormwater runoff.

Hoffman, in response to several questions, said she believes the pervious pavement is acceptable for use on residential roads under New Jersey's Residential Site Improvement Standards, which spell out rules for a variety of issues regarding residential developments.

Brick Township engineer Elissa Commins said she opposes the proposal for its use on the streets in the development and said she does not believe it complies with the state's residential standards.

"I support the use of pervious pavement where appropriate," she said. "I don't feel it is appropriate for municipal roads."

Brian Boccanfuso, the planning board engineer, said he agreed with Commins that the pervious pavement is not appropriate for municipal roads, because of the difference in the traffic patterns.

Pervious pavement has been used on some highways, in part because the friction caused by the high speeds sucks sand and debris out of gaps in the pavement, allowing it to continue to work properly for draining water.

Part of the issue is D.R. Horton has said it will turn over responsibility for the development's roads to Brick Township for everything from plowing snow to maintaining the road.

Pervious pavement requires specialized equipment, Brick Township officials have testified during the course of the hearings. Plowing runs the risk of tearing up the pavement, meaning it won't function properly for stormwater management. It also requires special cleanings at least four times a year to remove sand, pebbles and the like that find their way into the crevices that make the pavement porous. Pervious pavement also requires specialized asphalt mixes for repairs.

Brick Township does not have any other residential roads using the pavement, so the town would need to purchase or lease the necessary equipment for this neighborhood.

Commins also expressed frustration that in spite of months of testimony and revisions that D.R. Horton's professionals had agreed to make, they had not submitted updated site plans.

"I wish we had final drawings," she said. "This is the third meeting in a row where plans were revised but not submitted."

Hoffman said the plans have not substantially changed, and that updated plans had not been submitted because they are making revisions based on feedback from the Ocean County Planning Board and the Ocean County Soil Conservation District.

Among the changes those entities have requested is a stormwater runoff pipe under the road, as a failsafe in case the road does not handle the rainfall, Hoffman said.

The revelation that updated site plans had not been submitted since May prompted attorney Stuart Lieberman, who is representing Save Barnegat Bay in opposing the project, to urge the planning board to adjourn Monday's meeting.

Planning Board attorney Howard Hensel said there wasn't a need to adjourn it, but the lack of a final plan made it difficult for the board to vote on it.

Later, in answer to a question from a resident, Brick Township planner Tara Paxton said D.R. Horton wasn't required to file updated plans, but in not doing so, they were taking a risk.

"They could be asking the board to vote on it without all the facts. That's their risk," she said.

The next hearing likely will be in February, though no date had been determined Monday night.

Have a comment, a question or a news tip? Email karen.wall@patch.com.