CHESTERFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

CHESTERFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

October 14, 2009

The meeting of the Chesterfield Township Planning Board was called to order by Vice Chairwoman Kelly at 7:30PM. The Open Public Meetings Act statement was read and compliance noted.

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

As Chairman DeFelippis was not in attendance this evening, Vice Chairwoman Kelly led the meeting.

MINUTES

September 8, 2009 Regular Minutes

A motion was made by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to approve the September 8, 2009 Planning Board Minutes. The vote was in the affirmative, with the exceptions of Mr. Spence and Mr. Panfili, who abstained, and the motion carried.

INVITATION FOR PUBLIC TO SPEAK – Matters not on the Agenda

Ms. Kelly opened the meeting for public comments. There being none, the public portion of the meeting was closed.

PRESENTATION

Edward Fox on Northern Burlington County Growth and Preservation Plan (GAPP0

Mr. Fox is the Regional Planning Coordinator for the Burlington County Economic Development and Regional Planning Office. Mr. Fox spoke on the regional goals for the plan. The Northern Burlington County Growth and Preservation Plan (GAPP) is the result of a six-year consensus-building process among residents, farmers and other businesses, property owners, community groups, thirteen municipalities, the County and various State agencies. The GAPP is a sensible and practical regional approach to land use planning. Participating municipalities are encouraged to endorse the GAPP, along with the County, and then use the plan’s strategies to achieve the regional vision, goals and objectives for Northern Burlington County. Local endorsement means County commitment to support municipal implementation of the GAPP.

Mr. Fox explained that the GAPP identifies the range of “transects,” or regional landscapes and development patterns. The Transect model calls for development in the different transect categories to be distinctive – rural development should, for example, look and feel different than suburban or urban development. The GAPP is written to respect the various traditional settlement patterns across the Northern Burlington County region, from rural areas in Springfield Township to suburban areas in Bordentown Township and Bordentown City.

Mr. Fox’s office has presented the draft plan to the Burlington County Steering Committee, both of which agreed that the document should advance for local endorsement. Before they make the draft plan available for general public consideration, they would like to know whether our municipality has any substantial concerns regarding its findings and recommendations. The Steering Committee asked that he present the draft plan for comments from Chesterfield and Township Committee and Planning Board in order to obtain input. Their hopes are that the final outcome will be the endorsement of the plan by all townships.

Mr. Fox would like any input that the Township Committee or Planning Board could provide. He is looking for suggestions of anything that may be missing or if any fatal flaws can be found. The members had no issues. They were advised by Mr. Fox to contact him at his office if they had any recommendations.

RESOLUTIONS

36-2009 Michael & Beth D’Angelo: Block 302.02, Block 1; 100 Davenport Drive; Bulk Variance for Fence in Agricultural Zone, Approved September 8, 2009.

Ms. Jamanow spoke on the issue of the trees that were removed in the rear of the D’Angelo property. The approval of the rear fence was conditioned upon working around the trees in the back of the yard. It was noted that this may be a reforestation issue. Mr. D’Angelo requested an at-risk permit, which requires him to correct any changes to the property that do not comply with his approval.

A motion was made by Mr. Panfili, seconded by Mr. Malison, to approve resolution 36-2009. The vote was in the affirmative, with the exception of Mr. Spence, who abstained, and the motion carried.

37-2009 Heritage at 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. Approved September 8, 2009.

Due to discrepancies in the Resolution, and the need for American Properties to move forward with the model home, Solicitor Hardt will redraft the resolution for approval later in the meeting.

APPLICATIONS FOR ACTION

Crosswicks Innkeepers: 2 Chesterfield-Crosswicks Road; Block 201, Lot 1 and Block 202, Lot 61.01; Revised Site Plan to Modify Prior Approval in the Village Zone.

Thomas Leyden, 454 Main Street and Karl Braun, 12 White Pine Road were sworn. Exhibits were marked. The applicants were represented by their attorney, Timothy Little.

The applicants are requesting elimination of an additional hitching post in front of the tenant parking area. Also requested is postponement of signage until the building is occupied as well as moving the sign from the corner to above the front entrance. Mr. Braun advised that, historically, the sign should be on the corner, as shown in pictures from the 1600’s; however, the county deemed it a sight line issue.

The applicants would like to reduce the amount of landscaping that was approved for the parking lot. Mr. Braun testified that they attempted to be faithful to the conditions of the approval. The bed lines are filled and they provided a canopy of trees but he felt that it was important to strike a balance. There is not room at the fence line for the required evergreens and the plantings would affect the cisterns for stormwater. Although he agreed that the fence line needed softening, the large size plantings would not work. Mr. Braun advised that they would be happy to add flowering trees on the corner. Ms. Jamanow advised that the Planning Board required the landscaping because of the request by the neighbor.

Mr. Weismantel questioned the use of gravel in the parking lot. Ms. Jamanow stated that the original approval was for paving; however, the Innkeepers amended their site plan last year. The paving was waived and stone was approved. The applicants felt that the stone would be more authentic as well as less costly.

Ms. Jamanow asked if the three English Holly trees would be planted. Mr. Braun agreed. Ms. Jamanow suggested three ornamental trees in the corner. She noted that the highlighted items on the plan attached to her report are the items that are proposed.

As to the trees for the fence buffer, it was suggested that the applicant approach the neighbor and ask if he would agree to plant the trees on the owner’s property. Discussion ensued and it was considered to be unacceptable to put the owner in the position of either having to put the trees on his property or going without trees.

Ms. Kelly opened the hearing for public comments.

William Stevenson, 522 Ward Avenue, thought that the lot looked fine. He suggested a motion sensor for the parking lot light.

There being no further comments, the public portion of the hearing was closed.

The Planning Board established that three ornamental trees should be placed at the corner of Front Street and Crosswicks-Chesterfield Road. Two evergreens should be planted on the west property line and 3 holly trees on the back side, clear of the underground retention area. Plantings should adequately buffer the light in the parking lot. The additional hitching post will be eliminated and the sign is to be placed over the front of the entrance.

A motion was made by Mr. Malison, seconded by Mr. Panfili, to deem the application complete. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

A motion was made by Mr. Panfili, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to approve the application. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Mr. Leyden updated the Planning Board on the status of the Innkeeper’s project. Two of the three units are rented and all three have Temporary Certificates of Occupancy. One of the units is for moderate income. The sink and bar remain to be completed. The Innkeepers will be going before the Township Committee for issuance of a Club Liquor License.

RESOLUTIONS Continued

Solicitor Hardt read the redrafted Resolution 37-2009. A motion was made by Mr. Spence, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to approve Resolution 37-2009. The vote was in the affirmative, with the exception of Mr. Panfili, who abstained, and the motion carried.

DISCUSSION

Heritage at Chesterfield SF LLC: Model Home Approvals

Kenneth Buchholz and Barry Edelman were sworn. They were represented by their attorney, Linda Osman. During the September 24, 2009 Technical Review Committee meeting, Barry Edelman and Ken Buchholz of SF Homes (American Properties) requested review and recommendation of several new elevations to be constructed in the Heritage section of Old York Village.

Ms. Specca reported that these elevations are based on revisions to K. Hovnanian’s approved elevations from Cross Creek and Heritage developments. Due to the substantial reworking of the K. Hovnanian models, the Technical Review Committee deemed these to be entirely new elevations requiring Planning Board approval. Consequently, the 2008 revised architectural standards will apply to these new models. The following list summarizes the revised architectural standards:

§ Two units with substantially similar color palettes shall be separated by at least two units with differing color palettes.

§ A minimum of 60% of units on a street block shall have shutters.

§ The minimum porch shall be seven feet deep from the front wall of the dwelling and shall cover a minimum of 60% of the total width.

§ There shall be no more than 15% of the units on a street block with hipped roofs.

The floor plans of the reworked elevations, however, have not been revised resulting in the need for design waivers from the new architectural standards for porch width and coverage on some of the models.

In general, hipped roofs have been removed from all of the models and costly upgrades such as brick facades or metal roofs have been changed to options instead of standard features. Shutters will be added to all models wherever possible to achieve the appearance of functional shutters. In some cases, this may mean the shutters may not actually cover the entirety of the fenestration. Perhaps the most substantial change is the addition of the two story porch to all of the models.

Two story porches “look-alike” issues:

Many of the approved double porch models in other developments have subtle variations which have allowed them to be considered different enough to be located adjacent to one another; however, in most cases as a matter of policy these models have not been located next to one another. The board may want to formalize this policy of prohibiting two story porches on the same block as a condition of approval. On a case by case basis, these very similar models could be granted relief to be located near one another on the block.

The TRC recommendations for the proposed elevations as well as the need for waivers and identification of “look-alikes” are summarized below.

Model 2601- The Richmond:

#1 NOT Recommended

#2 Acceptable may need waiver for 60% porch coverage

#2A Acceptable may need waiver for 60% porch coverage

#3 Mr. Kelly noted that the roof line looked odd on this model. Mr. Edelman will have the architect provide other elevations of this model. This elevation will be marked unapproved until side elevations are submitted for review.

Model 2982- The Alexandria:

#1 Acceptable as shown, may be look alike with Fredericksburg on perimeter lots

#2 Remove dentil moulding on gable roof.

#3 Acceptable as shown

#3A Acceptable as shown

#4 Acceptable as shown

#5 Add shutters to porch windows

Model 2998-The Roanoke:

#1 Add shutters to all windows except oval

#1A Removed

#1B Eliminate railing on top of portico

#2 Acceptable may need waiver for 60% porch coverage/6’ depth

#3 May need waiver for 60% porch coverage/6’ depth/may not be dissimilar to #2

#4 Awkward fenestration, may need waiver for 6’ porch depth

Model 3366- The Chesapeake

#1 Remove small gable on second floor roof

#2 Acceptable, may need waiver for 60% porch coverage/6’ depth

#3 Add shutters to porch windows, may need waiver for 6’ porch depth

Model 3263-The Shenandoah:

#1 Acceptable as shown

#2 Acceptable may need waiver for 60% porch coverage/6’ depth

Model 3654-The Fredericksburg:

#1 Look alike with Alexandria #1 on perimeter lots, add shutters

#2 Acceptable as shown

#3 Acceptable as shown, add shutters

#4 Acceptable as shown, add shutters

#5 Acceptable as shown

Ms. Kelly opened the meeting for public comments.

Bob Shane, Fenton Lane, heard that the porches on these models were too small. Ms. Kelly advised Mr. Shane that the developer had agreed to make them larger.

There being no further comments, the public portion of the hearing was closed.

A motion was made by Mr. Spence, seconded by Mr. Lebak, to approve the Models with the exceptions of Model 2601 #1 (Richmond) and Model 2601 #3 (Richmond). The vote was in the affirmative, with the exception of Mr. Panfili, who abstained, and the motion carried.

At 9:40PM the Planning Board took a short break. At 9:45PM the Planning Board returned to the dais.

Phil Moldovan: Sale of Family Property

Mr. Wilson stepped down from the dais.

Mr. Moldovan spoke to the Planning Board regarding the sale of his family’s property. Mr. Moldovan was under the impression that when his family sold the land they knew nothing about the Transfer Development Rights Credits, which would have allowed them to sell the credits to the land as well as preserve the property. He felt that the developer bought the land on the premise of subdividing the property and then worked with the township to execute the paperwork for the TDR program. Valerie Jones, 21 Bordentown-Crosswicks Road also spoke on this issue. She reiterated Mr. Moldovan’s concerns.

Mr. Moldovan and Ms. Jones were advised that the TDR’s for that property had not been sought for enrollment. The property was preserved through the county’s preservation program. On applications such as the Moldovan property where TDR Credits are at issue, the Planning Board stresses that the owners be made aware that in selling their property they are giving up their TDR Credits and they must sign a form or provide a letter acknowledging that fact.

Mr. Wilson returned to the dais.

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

Mr. Weismantel showed the Planning Board pictures of satellite dishes that were installed in prohibited areas in Old York Village. In order to curtail this problem, it was suggested that the Zoning Officer post a notice on the website notifying the residents of this regulation.

Fence Ordinance Amendments

Ms. Specca reviewed the changes to the fence amendments that were recommended at the September Meeting. A motion was made by Mr. Spence, seconded by Mr. Malison, to recommend the amendments to the Township Committee. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

INVITATION FOR PUBLIC TO SPEAK

There were no comments.

ADJOURNMENT

At 10:30PM, there being no further business, a motion was made by Mr. Malison to adjourn. So moved.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda S. Wills, Secretary