September 9

CHESTERFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

September 8, 2009

The meeting of the Chesterfield Township Planning Board was called to order by Chairman DeFelippis at 7:45PM. The Open Public Meetings Act statement was read and compliance noted.

Roll call was taken showing present: Donald Coover, Lawrence Durr (8:15), Brian Kelly, Deborah Kelly, Gregory Lebak (8:15), Joseph Malison, John Nunziato, Lido Panfili, Matthew Weismantel, Brian Wilson and Chairman DeFelippis. Absent: F. Gerry Spence. Professional staff present: Frederick Hardt, Solicitor, Nancy Jamanow, Engineer, Lisa Specca, Planner’s Office.

MINUTES

August 11, 2009 Regular Minutes

Mr. Weismantel noted that he was not present at the July Planning Board Meeting and, therefore, abstained on the vote for approval of the July minutes and the memorialization of Mr. Berg’s resolution at the August 11^th Planning Board Meeting. Ms. Wills advised that she would make that correction. A motion was made by Mr. Coover, seconded by Mr. Weismantel, to approve the August 11, 2009 Planning Board Minutes. The vote in the affirmative, with the exceptions of Mr. Kelly, Ms. Kelly and Mr. Nunziato, who abstained, and the motion carried.

INVITATION FOR PUBLIC TO SPEAK – Matters not on the Agenda

Valerie Jones, 21 Bordentown-Crosswicks Road, questioned the Planning Board on a specific application regarding a lot consolidation and how it applied to the Transfer Development Rights Credits that the applicant received. Solicitor Hardt advised Ms. Jones to layout her questions in writing to the Planning Board’s attention and answers would be provided.

RESOLUTIONS

31-2009 The Crosswicks Foundation: Block 202, Lot 78.01; 2 Front Street; Use Variance and Waivers for a Minor Site Plan Approval for a Museum and Office in the Village District. Approved June 29, 2009.

A motion was made by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Panfili, to approve Resolution 31-2009. The vote was in the affirmative, with the exceptions of Mr. Coover, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Kelly, who abstained, and the motion carried.

34-2009 Tracy and Richard McCabe: Block 202.40, Lot 5; 14 Collington Street; Bulk Variance for a Fence in the Planned Village Development District.

A motion was made by Mr. Panfili, seconded by Mr. Coover, to approve Resolution 34-2009. The vote was in the affirmative, with the exceptions of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Kelly, who abstained, and the motion carried.

35-2009 A Resolution to Amend Resolution #11-2009 Regarding K. Hovnanian/Heritage for Approval of the James Model (Elevations IIIA6, IIIA7 IIIB7, IIIB6, IIIB7H and IIB5). Memorialized March 10, 2009.

A motion was made by Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to approve Resolution 35-2009. The vote was in the affirmative, with the exception of Mr. Panfili, who abstained, and the motion carried.

ITEMS FOR ACTION

Michael & Beth D’Angelo: Block 302.02, Block 1; 100 Davenport Drive; Bulk Variance for Fence in Agricultural Zone

Exhibits were marked and Michael D’Angelo was sworn. Mr. D’Angelo’s property is a corner lot, which is considered to have two frontages. The maximum height of a fence in the front yard in an Agricultural Zone is four feet. Mr. D’Angelo requested relief from the four feet requirement as the side facing Chesterfield-Crosswicks Road is a busy road at which a very serious accident has already occurred and he has small children. The extra two feet will provide them with a safer environment.

Mr. D’Angelo’s property is subject to a 10-foot utility easement which adjoins an additional 10-foot wide tree planting easement on the street side of his property. The street facing side yard is also subject to a 50-foot wide fence setback. Mr. D’Angelo proposes to place the fence within the tree planting easement. He provided pictures to the Planning Board showing that the trees were actually in the utility easement. It was Ms. Jamanow’s recommendation that the fence remain out of both easements. Solicitor Hardt advised Mr. D’Angelo that in order to place his fence in the easement, residents within his development must agree to Mr. D’Angelo’s request. There is a certain percentage (possibly 75%) of the development’s residents who would need to agree to the encroachment into the easement. This information would be in the residents’ deed.

Mr. Durr and Mr. Lebak arrived at the meeting at approximately 8:15.

Chairman DeFelippis opened the hearing for public comments. Kathy Herity, 79 Recklesstown Way, was sworn. She questioned whether the right-of-way was challenged by the development sign. She was advised that it was not.

The permitted height of a fence in Mr. D’Angelo’s back yard is 6 feet and is permitted to be placed up to the property line. Mr. D’Angelo agreed that no trees will be removed for the installation of the rear fence. He will plan the installation of the fence around the existing trees along the rear property line. Solicitor Hardt noted that an approval would be conditioned upon the 6-foot high fence being outside of the easements on the street side of the property. The fence at the rear property line will be inside of the tree line. Mr. D’Angelo asked if it would be possible to come back to the Planning Board at a later date and request a variance to move the fence into the easement if he was able to obtain approval for the encroachment from a sufficient amount of residents. He was advised that he had that option.

Mr. D’Angelo asked if it would be possible to start on his fence immediately. He was advised that he was able to proceed with an at-risk permit, which would require him to stay within the parameters of his approval.

A motion was made by Mr. Wiesmantel, seconded by Mr. Panfili, to grant a variance for a 6-foot high fence on the two frontages where 4 feet are required, to allow a 20-foot street setback where 50 feet are required and to approve an at-risk permit to begin installation of the fence prior to memorialization of his resolution. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Heritage @ Chesterfield SF LLC: (Previously American Properties) Block 107, Lot 8.01, Request for approvals of Village Homes on Perimeter Lots and a Model Home on Bordentown-Crosswicks Road and Adelphia Drive.

Ken Buchholz and Barry Edelman were advised that their application required the attendance of an attorney. A motion was made by Mr. Weismantel, seconded by Ms. Kelly, to continue the application until such time as representation was acquired. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried. Mr. Buchholz and Mr. Edelman removed themselves from the meeting to contact an attorney who would be able to get to the meeting in time to represent them this evening.

DISCUSSION

Technical Review Committee

Chairman DiFelippis spoke to the Planning Board about the duties of the Technical Committee. The members’ basic duties are to approve look-alike homes and color choices. More significant items such as approvals for new and revised models are reviewed at the Technical Meeting first so that the developers can work out any changes that the members feel would be more acceptable. The proposal would then go to the Planning Board. Chairman DiFelippis also spoke on the miscommunications regarding the model home on Bordentown-Crosswicks Road and Adelphia Drive. Chairman DeFelippis gave an invitation to all of the members to attend the meeting in order to get an understanding of the process.

Transfer Development Rights Credits

The Planning Board discussed the issue of the credit distribution on the changes that American Properties is requesting for Village homes on Perimeter lots. Ms. Jamanow and Ms. Specca found different sections of the Municipal Land Use codes that suggest conflicting references of which entity determined the credit – the lot or the home. The Planning Board felt that the ordinance should be clarified as to the credit connection.

A motion was made by Mr. Kelly, seconded by to Mr. Coover to recommend clarification of the TDR ordinance as it relates to credit allocations for lots vs. homes. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Satellite Dishes, Solar Panels and Boat Parking in the PVD District.

The Planning Board felt that the Township Ordinance needs to be made clear on the issue that satellite dishes need to be put in an area that is obscured. Solar panels should be flat or on an accessory building. Solar roof shingles should be encouraged. With modification of the ordinance there will still be issues with utility regulations. At this time, solar panels must be flat to the roof. A limit to the amount of solar panels should be stipulated. It was noted that the Planning Board is not trying to prohibit solar panels; however, regulations need to be provided. Solicitor Hardt will look into ordinances on satellite dishes and solar panels regulating aesthetics. The developers should be advised of this issue or a letter should be sent to the residents. As to the boat parking issue, it was determined that an ordinance should be adopted prohibiting boat parking on the street after a determined date. Current regulations permit “motorized vehicles” to park on the street.

Ken Buchholz and Barry Edelman were sworn. Both were represented by Linda Osman, Esq. Two village-type homes were presented for placement on perimeter lots. The #2982 Hess Model will have the garage doors moved from the back to the side of the homes to accommodate the perimeter lots. On the #2998 Joyce Model, the windows that were previously on the side will now be on the rear of the house. The garage that was on the rear is now on the side of the house and will have two separate doors, instead of one larger door. Mr. Edelman testified that the houses are narrower than the perimeter homes with a smaller living space. They will sell for approximately $420,000 to $430,000. It was noted that these homes will require a 7-foot porch width and a wider 3½ -foot window trim with “J” type molding.

Mr. Kelly asked what was driving the change to the Village homes. He was advised that customers prefer the floor plan of the village home. Mr. Weismantel questioned the placement of the driveways. Mr. Buchholz advised that five aprons were changed so that there would be no further problems. He noted that they were planning to go before the Technical Review Committee for review of more models.

Ms. Jamanow advised that the applicant first asked for a rear entry on the property designated for a model home. When it was determined that the driveway would not fit, they asked for the layout on the original plan. It was noted that the properties that were addressed in this application are specifically 1 full-credit houses. They are subject to 3½ inch “J” type molding where no shutters are used. Look-alike houses will comply with all regulations. The applicants will be back to the Technical Review Committee with new elevations for approval without the brick frontages. Mr. Edelman noted that Deeds and Restrictions were recorded by Acacia. He will send copies to the professional staff.

A motion was made by Mr. Durr, seconded by Ms. Kelly, to approve both models. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Fence Ordinance Amendments

It was determined that the fence ordinance issue would be held for the October meeting.

Amending of Escrow Ordinance

After a short discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Malison, seconded by Mr. Lebak, to recommend the escrow amendments to the Township Committee. The vote was in the affirmative and the motion carried.

INVITATION FOR PUBLIC TO SPEAK

An unidentified resident spoke on the subject of fences in the PVD Zone. She felt that the Planning Board should recommend to the Township Committee an ordinance amendment allowing a less restrictive setback for fences in the new development. She felt that it was burdensome for the applicants to pay for a variance when the Planning Board typically allowed the changes. Her example was that sheds were allowed four feet from the property line; however, fences, through the granting of variances, are allowed 10 feet from the rear property line, instead of the ordinance regulation of rear yard fences with alleys set at no closer to the alley than the end of the garage.

ADJOURNMENT

At 10:50PM, there being no further business, a motion was made by Mr. Malison to adjourn. So moved.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda S. Wills, Secretary