|
CHESTERFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING CHESTERFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD May 12, 2009 The meeting of the Chesterfield Township Planning Board was called to order by Chairwoman Kelly at 7:30PM. The Open Public Meetings Act statement was read and compliance noted. Roll call was taken showing present: Donald Coover, Lawrence Durr, Brian Kelly, Deborah Kelly, Thomas Leyden, Joseph Malison, John Nunziato, Lido Panfili, Matthew Weismantel and Brian Wilson. Absent: Gregory Lebak, F. Gerry Spence and Chairman DeFelippis. Professional staff present: Frederick Hardt, Solicitor; Nancy Jamanow, Engineer; Lisa Specca and Judy Buster (8:50), Planner’s Office. MINUTES April 14, 2009 Meeting A motion was made by Mr. Coover, seconded by Mr. Leyden, to approve the April 14, 2009 Planning Board Minutes. The vote was in the affirmative, with the exceptions of Ms. Kelly, Mr. Leyden, Mr. Malison and Mr. Wilson, who abstained, and the motion carried. INVITATION FOR PUBLIC TO SPEAK – Matters not on the Agenda Dean Nalbone, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Harry Bentley addressed the easements placed on his property upon the approval of the Crestwood Development; specifically the easement that allows construction traffic to access the development site through his property. The Bentley’s felt that the construction traffic would be a safety hazard for their grandchildren as well as a noise problem. Solicitor Hardt advised that those conditions were approved at the time of the original approval, at which time Mr. Bentley was in attendance. The applicant has rights under their approval and the Planning Board did not have the authority to compel the developer to come back to the Board and amend their approval. It was suggested that a fence barrier along the easement might solve the safety issue. RESOLUTIONS 24-2009 Chesterfield Matzel & Mumford: 157 Recklesstown Way: Block 202.100, Lot 1; Relocate Garage and Eliminate Windows. Approved at the April 1, 2009 Tech Meeting.
25-2009 Susan and Robert Miller: Block 202.15, Lot 1; 151 Recklesstown Way; Bulk Variance for Over Sized Fence in the PVD Zone.
As the Planning Board did not receive the resolutions with adequate time to review them, the resolutions will be memorialized at the June 9, 2009 Planning Board Meeting.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
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. Set Date for New Meeting.
Solicitor Hardt advised the Board that he spoke with the Crosswicks Foundation’s attorney, Timothy Little. The applicant has an issue regarding the Board’s inability to provide a seven-member board for a meeting on June 9th. They do not wish to be heard until the Board is able provide seven members for their hearing. Three of the four eligible members in attendance, Mr. Leyden, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Nunziato, advised that they would be available on both Tuesday, June 16th and Tuesday, June 23rd. Ms. Wills was directed to contact the remaining four eligible members for their ability to attend to a meeting on either of those dates.
Matthew Berg: Block 202.41, Lot 11; 151 Bordentown-Crosswicks Road; Bulk Variance for a Fence in the Planned Village Development District.
Due to problems with Mr. Berg’s public notice of his application, this application will be continued to the June 9, 2009 Planning Board Meeting, conditioned upon the applicant providing proper public notice.
William and Vicki Weisgarber: Block 202.43, Lot 3; 7 Collington Street; Bulk Variance for a Fence in the Planned Village Development District.
Mr. and Mrs. Weisgarber were sworn. Exhibits were marked. The applicants are requesting a 10’ setback from the alley property line for their four foot fence. Ordinance 130-83E(9)(c) states that the fence is required to be no further to the back of the property than the end of the garage. Mrs. Weisgarber testified that the limit of a fenced-in yard to the closest point of the garage to the alley would severely minimize their property’s usefulness to the outdoor living space. Their request would provide their children with a useful and safe backyard.
Ms. Jamanow’s review letter dated May 6, 2009 recommended that the fence be located along the southern property line, instead of two feet from the southern property line, in order to eliminate the grass strip between the fence and property line. The Weisgarbers agreed to the change.
Chairperson Kelly opened the hearing for public comments. There being none, the public portion of the meeting was closed.
The requirement for fences to be no closer to the alley than the front of the garage was mainly due to the need of space for plowed snow. Ms. Jamanow recommended that variances of this nature contain a caveat in their resolutions of approval requiring the homeowners to take responsibility for repairing the fence if it is damaged by snow plowing.
A motion was made by Mr. Coover, seconded by Mr. Malison, to approve the Weisgarbers’ request with the condition that the side yard fence be extended to the southern property line. The vote was in the affirmative, with the exception of Mr. Weismantel, who abstained, and the motion carried.
Karen Chmielinski: Block 301, Lot 2; 33 Church Street; Use Variance for an Apartment over Garage in the Village District.
Mr. Kelly and Mr. Durr stepped down.
Mr. and Mrs. Chmielinski were sworn. Exhibits were marked. The applicant is seeking a use variance to permit alterations to an existing garage to construct living space over the garage. One bay of the garage will remain as garage space and one bay will be used to access the second floor apartment.
Ms. Chmielinski testified that they are requesting the apartment for their parents, who are ages 77 and 75. They intend to care for, socialize and eat with their parents. They are also aware that they are subject to the review of the Historical Society. Ms. Chmielinski testified that when her parents are no longer using the apartment, her daughter will occupy the unit. Mr. Chmielinski advised that the full-size dormers that were to be installed over the garage would provide adequate space for the apartment and would add an additional height of 7 ½ feet to each side of the roof. Mr. Coover was concerned as to the impact this addition would have on their neighbor’s property, as the garage is very close to their home. The garage is also closer to the road than the neighbor’s home.
The applicants were advised of the monetary issues with this apartment. They would be obligated to provide 6% of the assessed value of the additional unit, as well as recreation fees and a sewer connection fee.
Mr. Malison questioned the means of access to the vacant property to the north of their home. It was established that no easement is in place. The access to the vacant property is through the Chmielinski property.
Solicitor Hardt advised that no hardship has been established. The applicant must find that this application provides some advance in the zoning, such as senior citizen housing. Once Ms. Chmielinski’s parents are no longer using the apartment the plan is to move in their daughter into the unit. If an approval is given with the restriction of senior citizen housing, it would require continued enforcement by the Zoning Officer.
Ms. Specca reviewed her memorandum dated May 6, 2009. She addressed the issue of possibly deed restricting the property for affordable housing to satisfy the positive and negative criteria. Ms. Specca reviewed the purpose of the Village Historic Preservation District and the goals of the Master Plan.
As to site development issues, Ms. Specca felt that testimony from the applicant should be provided on issues such as existing parking, business operations at the site, lighting and the addition of a new sewer connection with a grinder pump. Mr. Chmielinski testified that here is plenty of light on the property for safety.
Chairperson Kelly opened the hearing for public comment.
Barbara Rios, 31 Church Street, was sworn. Ms. Rios is the only neighbor and her home is situated near the garage. She provided pictures of the garage taken from her property, which were marked A6a through A6f. Ms. Rios was in her home a few years before the garage was built. The angle of the garage blocks her view and, with the addition, will become bigger. She felt that there were other ways that the Chmielinskis could help their family as they just put a large addition on their house. Ms. Rios has no expectation of privacy if the addition is built.
Mr. Lange, 485 Main Street, expressed concern over the business sign and debris at the site.
Ms. Chmielinski advised that when they submitted the construction permit for the garage, they wanted to put it in a different area in the back of the property; however, they were told by the construction office that it needed to be placed where it now stands. There was a short discussion on the garage’s placement on the site.
As there were no further comments, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Mr. Weismantel asked if the garage was used for only personal items. Mr. Chmielinski advised that only personal storage items and tools are kept in the garage.
Chairperson Kelly was concerned that this addition would remain an apartment after the parents no longer lived there. Mr. Weismantel felt that the applicants testimony was not sufficient to satisfy the criteria needed. Mr. Coover felt that the testimony from the neighbors was compelling and the addition would further obstruct the neighbor’s view. Mr. Malison looked for the positive but found more negative criteria with the expansion of the garage. Mr. Nunziato felt that they had not met the positive criteria.
A motion was made by Mr. Coover, seconded by Mr. Leyden, to deny the application. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
Mr. Kelly and Mr. Durr returned to the dais.
DISCUSSION
At 9:45PM Mr. Malison left the meeting.
Tree Status in the PVD District
At their April meeting, the Environmental Commission raised concern as to the lack of cooperation of the developers in proper planting and caring for the trees as well as the replacement of diseased and dead trees. Although they understood the regulations imposed by performance guarantee procedures, they question the reasoning for ongoing inspections if a remediation plan is not in place. It is the Environmental Commission’s opinion that the delay in planting the trees will ultimately delay the development’s realization of an adequate canopy. The Environmental Commission requested input from the Planning Board in finding a solution for this issue.
The Planning Board reviewed letters from the planner’s office regarding their inspections and findings. Ms. Jamanow and Ms. Judy Buster will work together on having the dead and diseased trees removed and replaced.
Amendments to Fence Ordinance: Changes to the Fence Ordinance in the PVD District.
Ms. Specca discussed with the Planning Board amendments to the fence ordinance in Old York Village regarding materials, colors and design. Suggestions were made by the Planning Board that will be added to the amendments. The discussion was tabled and will be discussed further at a future Planning Board Meeting after Ms. Specca rewrites the amendments to include the Board’s recommendations.
Satellite Dishes in the PVD District.
Satellite dishes as well as boat parking in the PVD District will be discussed at a future meeting
CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental Resolutions Letter Regarding Freshwater Wetlands Permits
Ms. Jamanow noted that this letter is regarding permits for the new recreation facility. She asked that the agenda be amended to add discussion on a capital improvement. A motion was made by Mr. Durr, seconded by Mr. Coover, to amend the agenda to discuss the capital improvement.
Ms. Jamanow explained that a capital improvement must come before the Planning Board in order for the members to find that the improvement is consistent with the Master Plan. The Township Committee plans to begin making improvements to the Fuchs parcel on Fenton Lane. Construction of the site will include three soccer fields, two baseball fields and one softball field. A trail will be added around the outside of the 25-acre park. In the future, a concession stand, playground and water and sewer will be added to the site.
A motion was made by Mr. Coover, seconded by Mr. Leyden to find that the plans for the field are consistent with the Master Plan and building plan and to recommend construction of the field. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
INVITATION FOR PUBLIC TO SPEAK Chairwomen Kelly opened the meeting for public comments. There being none, the public portion of the meeting was closed. ADJOURNMENT At 11:05 PM, there being no further business, a motion was made by Mr. Durr, to adjourn. So moved. Respectfully submitted, Linda S. Wills, Secretary |