May 2, 2006
By Steve Walko, Acting Secretary
May 2, 2006, 19:30
MINUTES
May 2, 2006
Planning Board Meeting
Borough of Haddonfield
The May 2, 2006; meeting of the Haddonfield Planning Board was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Andrew Johnson at 7:30 p.m. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by way of the official newspaper of the municipality. It is being held in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act and notice is also posted in the Municipal Building and the Haddonfield Public Library.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Johnson, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Rauschenberger, Ms. Kitchen, Ms. Rizzuto
Comm. Borden – Absent
Ms. Marini – Absent
Mr. Lieberman – Absent
Ms. Martin – Absent
Mr. Bucci - Absent
Mr. Sobel (Alt.2) – Absent
Mr. Walko, Community Development Officer - Present
Mr. Lundgren, Planning Board Solicitor – Present
Mr. Chelotti, Borough Engineer – Present
Mr. Ken Ressler, Borough Engineer - Present
Mr. Haro, HPC Representative - Present
Mr. Alberto, Borough Planner – Absent
MINUTES: Held until the end.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
BUSINESS SIGN APPEALS & DEVIATIONS: None
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPLICATIONS:
HPC # 06-05 Andrea Stripling, 121 Centre Street. Mr. Johnson summarized the HPC report. Application is to revise the design of a one-story addition adding a small porch with columns and railings. The columns and railing will be constructed of wood and the porch deck will be a composite material. HPC recommended approval of the revised application as submitted. Mr. Harrison made a motion to approved application. Mr. Rauschenberger seconded the motion. The motion to approve both the April and the March plans. VOTE- unanimous. APPROVED.
HPC # 06-07 Michael Berger, 264 Kings Highway East. Mr. Johnson summarized the HPC report. Application is to remove the cracked and deteriorated sections of the concrete driveway, sidewalk, walkway, and to install new concrete sections. HPC recommended approval of installation of new concrete sidewalks with exposed ¾ inch aggregate along with the removal of deteriorated sections of driveway to be replaced with pavers as previously approved by HPC or new concrete driveway and walkway with exposed ¾ inch aggregate. Mr. Rauschenberger made a motion to approve application. Mr. Harrison seconded the motion. VOTE-unanimous. APPROVED.
HPC # 06-08 Keith and Leslie Schwab, 141 Warwick Road. Mr. Johnson summarized the HPC report. Application is replace the top part of the mansard roof only, removal of slate and replace with copper flashing and asphalt shingles to match existing slate. The flat portions of the roof are rubber and will be replaced with a new rubber roof. HPC recommended approval of application as submitted as well as the plastic shingles that simulate slate. Mr. Harrison made a motion to approve application. Ms. Rizzuto seconded the motion. VOTE- unanimously. APPROVED.
HPC # 06-09 Michael Tan, 117 Colonial Avenue. Mr. Johnson summarized the HPC report. Application is to remove of the existing railing with turned baluster and install a new 36 inch high square baluster. HPC recommended a turned baluster, not square.
HPC # 06-09 HPC recommended approval of the application with the following conditions: the existing porch should be made temporarily secure, the applicant should investigate the cost of restoring the existing porch rather than replacing it with a new railing, if necessary to replace they should be replaced in-kind, deteriorated balusters shall be removed and new balusters matching the profiles and dimensions of the existing should be installed, and if the bottom rail is rotted it should be removed and a new bottom rail be fabricated matching the dimensions and profiles of existing. If the applicant has made a consorted effort to restore the existing porch and it is not economically feasible HPC recommends it installs the proposed railing to match the height of the existing railing. The privacy lattice will be replaced with a new wood privacy lattice, the temporary porch gate will be removed from the porch when not in use. The applicant will notify the HPC consultant regarding the feasibility of restoring the existing porch railing rather than replacing it prior to the planning board meeting. Mr. Tan remarked about custom baluster and his attempts to get estimates. He stated that replacing the railings and baluster in-kind is not feasible at this time. Mr. Haro remarked that the applicant found to replace in-kind is not feasible. Mr. Tan is agreeable with the height being 31 inches high. Ms. Kitchen commented as an architect that the proposed work demishes any character that the house has. Mr. Tan asked what she would recommend. Ms. Kitchen suggested Mr. Tan research how to obtain wooden balusters to replace existing, she commented that it would not be all that difficult to do. Mr. Haro remarked about the HPC recommendations and the safety issue. Ms. Rizzuto questioned if the applicant’s baluster’s match the neighbors. Mr. Tan responded no. Ms. Rizzuto further commented that the neighbors must have replaced theirs. Mr. Tan stated it was the previous owners. Ms. Rizzuto asked if all the balusters are in really bad condition. She asked if the ones on the side could be moved to the front so the front could match. Mr. Tan remarked since he was going to have the work done, he wanted it all done right the first time.
HPC # 06-09 Mr. Rauschenberger remarked that a majority of the houses on Colonial have square balusters. He asked if there were turned baluster close to the existing rather than square. Mr. Johnson questioned if Ms. Soderberg could help. Mr. Haro commented that members can not recommend a person/contractor. Mr. Tan remarked about the HPC meeting and the members’ recommendation. He stated he was given two choices. Ms. Kitchen remarked that cost cannot be a factor in considerations by law. Mr. Johnson commented on the purpose of the Historic District and the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Harrison asked Mr. Tan if he would mind his application being tabled for him to have the opportunity to speak with Lisa Soderberg, Historic Consultant, for Haddonfield. Mr. Tan responded that he had previous spoke with Ms. Soderberg. Mr. Rauschenberger commented about acceptable substitutes. Mr. Johnson remarked that the boards try to stay with more authentic replacements/restorations. Mr. Tan commented about the HPC meeting and he remarked that he was not able to match the existing. His intention was to replace the porch before summer for the safety of his children. Mr. Tan is willing to have turned balusters. Mr. Walko asked what if the board approves the application with the condition the baluster be approved by the HPC consultant. Mr. Johnson commented on the process. Ms. Kitchen made a motion to approve with the condition the baluster be a turned style, made of wood, match the existing as closely as possible and be approved by the HPC consultant. Mr. Harrison seconded the motion. VOTE unanimously – APPROVED w/conditions.
HPC # 06-10 Haddonfield Central Elementary and Middle School, 5 Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Johnson summarized HPC report dated April 26, 2006. Application is to install two new barrier free parking areas adjacent to the new entry addition is located to close proximate to the new ramp along Chestnut Street. HPC recommend the proposed new barrier free parking area adversely impacts the architectural character of the streetscape.
HPC # 06-10 The widening of the road will undermine the character of the important streetscape, barrier free parking could be provided in the rear parking lot or the other side of the street without the necessity of widening the road. The HPC recommended that a stacking and traffic study be completed before the location of the barrier free parking area is identified. HPC recommended that the parking areas in front of the new entry addition be denied. Mr. Haro further commented that two significant trees will be taken away. Mr. Johnson clarified that the property in the application is borough property. Mr. Lundgren remarked that it is the borough right of way. Mr. Johnson questioned if the applicant had spoken with the borough and obtained permission? Ted Hopkins, Architect, responded no. Mr. Lundgren advised the board of the jurisdictional issues. Mr. Hopkins summarized the application and the purpose of the new addition. Ms. Kitchen asked, "What was the Board of Education’s reaction to the HPC report/recommendations"? Mr. Hopkins responded that he had not read the HPC report but did advise the Board of Education after the HPC meeting of the HPC’s recommendations. Mr. Harrison questioned Mr. Hopkins if he had received any input from the police in regards to traffic. Mr. Hopkins responded that there were some discussions but he was not part of those discussions. Mr. Johnson questioned if a specific drawing had been reviewed by the police? Mr. Hopkins responded not to his knowledge. Mr. Harrison asked how many handicap children will be attending the school and how many spaces are needed? He commented that after these children finish going to this school the town in left with these spaces. Mr. Johnson questioned if there was a legal requirement to having parking at the proposed location? Mr. Hopkins responded not to his knowledge. Mr. Rauschenberger asked the existing parking is inadequant, a problem, or an improvement? Mr. Hopkins responded that he has heard that it is dangerous backing out. Mr. Lundgren asked what the Board of Education is trying to accomplish with the drawings submitted. Mr. Hopkins commented on the drawings. He remarked that the intent was to have a small walk with access to a ramp.
HPC # 06-10 Mr. Johnson remarked that he toured the site and commented about the number of handicap parking already there. Mr. Harrison questioned if there will be a handicap drop-off and have the neighbors been approached about the proposal. Ms. Kitchen made a suggestion to Mr. Hopkins to go back to the Board of Education and get the answers to “Why are we doing this?” and “What are we trying to accomplish with the proposed plan?” and then come back in front of the board. Mr. Hopkins remarked to why the Board of Education is doing this. Mr. Johnson asked the need of the proposed plan. Mr. Hopkins responded that this parking is safer and closer. Mr. Johnson questioned if the other handicap parking spaces are unsafe in town? Mr. Hopkins remarked about the ability to pull in and out of parking spaces. Mr. Johnson commented that these spaces will be used for patrons of the school. Mr. Hopkins remarked about Mr. Lundgren’s previous comments that you cannot designate handicap parking on a public street specifically for the school. Mr. Johnson remarked about there being no guarantees that the spaces would be used for patrons of the school and that it negates the argument of close proximity. Mr. Johnson further commented about the sidewalk being heavily used. Mr. Walko asked if the proposed application meets the New Jersey Barrier Free parking requirements. Mr. Hopkins responded that the size would have to, but commented that the proposal is not a fully engineered design. Board discussion on the location of proposed handicap parking, the design, and needed approvals. Ms. Kitchen made a motion to deny the application. Mr. Harrison seconded the motion. VOTE- unanimous. Application DENIED.
HPC # 06-11 Haddonfield Memorial High School, 401 Kings Highway East. Mr. Hopkins remarked that the matter had been tabled at the HPC meeting. Application TABLED.
NEW BUSINESS:
SD # 06-01 Haddon Properties, LLC, 219 Reillywood Avenue and 200 East Summit. The application is to move the existing property lines. Matthew Madden, Esq. representing Haddon Property. Mr. Madden summarized the application and provided a copy of the tax map indicating where the proposed lot line would be. He stated that the proposed application is to move the rear lot line to add an additional 1500 square feet to existing lot 1.01. Mr. Madden stated both properties are located in the R-7 zone and no variances are required. Mr. Lundgren commented that both would be conforming and there would be not encroachments created as a result of moving the lot line. Mr. Madden responded that no encroachments would be created and remarked on the created lot size. Thomas Kadar, property owner, 219 Reillywood Avenue, sworn in and testified that there are no additional structures on the property. Mr. Madden remarked about the engineer review letter in regards to the existing height of the house and fence. He noted that the applicant would be requesting waivers items 12, 16, and 49. Mr. Chelotti summarized the engineer’s review, this is a letter minor lot line adjustment. He stated that conceptionialy that there are no issues. Mr. Chelotti commented that most the review letter commented on the details of the plan. He stated the most important was the signature and seal of the professional that prepared the plan. Mr. Madden remarked that the subdivision will be perfected by deed. Mr. Lundgren noted that a copy of the deed needs to be submitted to the engineer, the board solicitor, and the zoning office for approval prior to being filed. Mr. Madden agreed. Mr. Chelotti remarked that the street addresses be added to the plan. He stated that there was a question to the survey of 219 Reillywood. Mr. Madden stated it is a preexisting non-conformity. Mr. Lundgren summarized the application and the ordinance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Elizabeth Creidler, 230 E. Summit. Ms. Creidler stated that she is not concerned with the application of moving the property line but more with what they are going to build on the property at 200 E. Summit.
Mr. Madden commented that there is no construction proposed as part of this application. Ms. Creidler again stated her concerns for potential builders building on the lot. Mr. Johnson remarked that the moving of the property line does not affect the potential of building on the lot and that the lot meets the current zone requirements. Ms. Kitchen sympathetically explained to Ms. Creidler that planning board is governed by laws and does not have any latitude when an application comes before the board that meets all the requirements that the municipality adopted. Mr. Johnson remarked that moving the lot line would actually make the vacant lot smaller. Ms. Creidler restated her concern with the potential for building on the lot.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED:
Ms. Kitchen made a motion to approve application. Mr. Harrison seconded the motion. VOTE 5-0. APPROVED.
COMMITTEE & SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Mr. Johnson gave a status report on the Downtown “Visioning” Plan. He remarked about the first workshop and the number of people that attended. He stated that there would be a second workshop in early summer.
Mr. Johnson talked about a new HPC committee and the possibility to expand the historic district. Mr. Rauschenberger stated that the committee has had two meeting and remarked about different levels of districts. He referenced the conservation district in Philadelphia specifically Queens Village. Mr. Rauschenberger stated that there are none currently in New Jersey and that they had planned to meet with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Commission in the week coming.
Mr. Johnson commented that the Historic District requirements need to be advertised. Mr. Haro suggested a laymen’s guide to the Historic District.
Mr. Johnson remarked about putting a periodical in Municipal Matters. Board remarked about a Historic District handbook that a realtor could handout to a new homeowner as a welcome gift. Mr. Rauschenberger suggested about having a working meeting with the different boards for all new members.
MINUTES: Mr. Harrison made a motion to table the minutes until
Next meeting. Ms. Kitchen seconded the motion.
MEETING ADJOURNED 9:16 PM.
Typed and Transcribed by:
Anne C. Frey
Recording Secretary
Reviewed and Approved by:
Steven P. Walko
Community Dev. Official
© Copyright 2005 Haddonfield, NJ [All Rights Reserved]
