EAST AMWELL PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

7:30 PM East Amwell Municipal Building

March 11, 2009 - Meeting

Call to Order, Attendance and Pledge of Allegiance

This meeting of the East Amwell Planning Board was opened on March 11, 2009 at 7:36 PM. The following notice was read, “In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, this is a regularly scheduled meeting pursuant to the annual meeting notice as published in the January 29, 2009 issue of the Hunterdon County Democrat, a copy of the agenda for this meeting was forwarded to the Hunterdon County Democrat, filed in the Township Clerk’s Office and posted on the bulletin board on March 5, 2009.”

Present: Fred Gardner

Rob Gilbert

Bela Kamensky

Pete Kneski

Linda Lenox

Don Reilly, Chairman

Dart Sageser

Roger DeLay

Planner Slagle (Filling in for Planner Banisch)

Excused: Gail Glashoff

Michael Weis

Joe Wolfgang

Citizens’ Privilege to Speak on Items Not on the Agenda

Chairman Reilly opened the floor to public comment for any items not listed on the agenda. Seeing no one come forward, a motion by Fred Gardner, seconded by Linda Lenox to close to the public was unanimously approved.

Review of Minutes

A motion by Linda Lenox, seconded by Roger DeLay to approve the Board’s 2/11/09 minutes with corrections was unanimously approved.

New Business – Other

Discussion: Scenic Corridor/Bi-ways Update

Planner Slagle explained that a scenic corridors and bi-ways plan is something the Township would prepare through the following process: An analysis is done to review each of the local roads and areas to be designated as scenic. She noted these areas could include a publically traveled road as well as a view from a park and view shed areas. Next, an inventory is done to define exactly what the scenic view shed is and then design guidelines are established regarding development and landscape. Planner Slagle commented that the scenic corridors and bi-ways plan must be done first and then ordinances can be implemented.

Chairman Reilly clarified that the inventory is the baseline justification for whatever design standards the Board/Township wishes to implement. Planner Slagle agreed and noted that the inventory is done by driving and photographing the area in conjunction with utilizing GIS mapping for view shed analysis.

Mr. DeLay asked what power the scenic corridors designation has if the State comes in and decides to do something. Planner Slagle explained the State and County can still come in and make changes to roadways and clarified that the scenic designation only regulates from a development perspective. Mr. Gardner noted that the designation really controls what gets built off of the road.

East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – 3/11/09

Chairman Reilly opened the floor to public comment. Frances Gavigan of 123 Wertsville Road came forward and explained that if a road has scenic bi-way designation there are alternative design guidelines that can be applied to road repairs and historic buildings. She stated having a scenic bi-ways designation is a mechanism to negotiate with, but it requires local governing body support as well as County support.

Planner Slagle will draft a report with examples for the Board to review.

Approval: Resolution PB#2009-06 – MidAtlantic Equine Center Fire Tank Installation Waiver

A motion by Fred Gardner, seconded by Rob Gilbert to approve the Resolution PB#2009-06 was unanimously approved by roll call vote.

Roll Call Vote: Fred Gardner: Yes, Rob Gilbert: Yes, Bela Kamensky: Yes, Mayor Kneski: Yes, Linda Lenox: Yes, Don Reilly: Yes, Dart Sageser: Yes, Roger DeLay: Yes.

Approval: Resolution PB#2009-07 – Amendment to Stormwater Management Plan

A motion by Dart Sageser, seconded by Bela Kamensky to approve Resolution PB#2009-07 was unanimously approved by roll call vote.

Roll Call Vote: Dart Sageser: Yes, Bela Kamensky: Yes, Fred Gardner: Yes, Rob Gilbert: Yes, Mayor Kneski: Yes, Linda Lenox: Yes, Don Reilly: Yes, Roger DeLay: Yes

Discussion: 2009 Planning Board Goals

Planner Slagle explained the memo from her office dated 3/5/09 was generated to provide guidance on how a natural resource constrained lands ordinance works. She said the theory behind the ordinance is that Boards often see a large parcel of land come in for development that has many constraints but an applicant is still permitted to do the full density build out on the lot which often impacts the sensitive features on the site such as water and septic. Planner Slagle indicated the Courts have recognized these issues and have said that developers must take the gross acreage and deduct out any environmental constraints which then results in a net acreage that the density build out is now applied to in order to determine how many potential subdivided lots can be created.

The memo defines what can be considered constrained lands, such as: Wetland areas, flood plain areas, steep slopes, transition or regulated areas, prime agriculture soil areas, forested areas etc. Then a level of protection is established for each area. For example wetlands can be considered 100% constrained land, therefore if there was 1 acre of wetlands on a particular parcel, the whole acre would be deducted out. Once all of the constrained land percentages are deducted out, a developer would have a buildable tract area which is what the density determination is based on. Planner Slagle noted that constrained land should not be double counted in any single area. If there are wetlands, floodplains, transition buffers etc. all in the same vicinity, the greatest ratio factor is deducted which would likely be the wetlands at 100%.

Planner Slagle commented that when constrained lands are defined, you must be careful not to confine development to a spot on the property that may scar the landscape. This can be remedied through ordinances that outline design guidelines. Mr. Sageser asked if any of these issues would be appealable to the Board of Adjustment. Planner Slagle explained that these ordinances are typically used for new subdivisions coming before the Planning Board.

Mr. DeLay asked how all of this relates to cluster developments. Planner Slagle explained the cluster development provisions would be applied to the buildable tract. Chairman Reilly clarified that the number of potential building lots would be reduced because a developer would not get credit for unbuildable land.

East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – 3/11/09

There was some discussion on the actual number of lots large land owners may be able to create based on the defined constraints. There was discussion on applying the same standards throughout each zoning district in the Township vs. tailoring the standards for each zone. Mr. Sageser commented that this was an Amwell Valley Agricultural District issue since it wasn’t likely that anyone would be able to subdivide 100 acres in the Sourland Mountain due to steep slopes and the 15 acre minimum. Mr. Gardner commented that there is a difference when you constrain “density” on a large lot. He commented that where building is prohibited is quite different than saying how many structures can I build. He used the example of someone who may have a 10 acre lot in the Amwell Valley Zone with 3 acres of wetlands and asked if they now need 13 acres in order to build. Planner Slagle said no, but the Board then noted that if a property owner had 100 acres in the Amwell Valley they may not be able to subdivide it into 10 lots based on potential constraints.

Mr. DeLay commented on the fairness of the proposed constrained lands ordinance regarding subdivisions. Mr. Gilbert stated, “If somebody is going to subdivide, and if they are going to cluster and therefore get a bonus, all we’re doing is saying that the calculation of your bonus is not based on the fact that you’re preserving—in a sense—land that could never be built on in the first place.” Mr. Gardner proposed a theoretical situation saying if someone has 100 acres they could subdivide off 10 acre lots as long as there is no overall development, the Board agreed with the hypothesis and it was noted that if those same 10 acre lots were subdivided off all at the same time, there may be a problem. Mr. Gardner said he isn’t sure that he objects to the potential constrained land ordinance, but he is slightly concerned with the possible inconsistencies in treatment of land owners. Mr. Sageser commented that he didn’t think this would be a surprise to land owners with constraints on their land. Mr. Gardner then clarified that if he had 22 acres of land with 4 acres of wetlands, he would only have 1 buildable lot and he said, “I’m not sure that is what we would want to intend to do.”

Chairman Reilly commented that the Board would have to make a value judgment. If someone comes in with 20 acres with a half acre of wetlands and they want to subdivide, the Board would be hard pressed to deny it. However, there comes a point where the issue is not de-minimus and the Board would have to make a determination.

Mr. DeLay asked what the rationale is for excluding steep slopes from the calculation of buildable area. Chairman Reilly explained the rationale is that steep slopes are not suitable to be built on and those areas should be excluded out of the calculation.

Mr. Sageser commented that he agreed with the proposed constraints for subdivisions, but not necessarily for single lots because he believes the current restrictions are reasonable. He stated if a property owner could configure building around steep slopes, wetlands and easements then “more power to them.”

Mr. Gardner stated he would like to hear from Attorney Norman on the matter regarding any legal issues that may arise from the constrained lands ordinance. Planner Slagle explained this matter has been vetted through the courts. She noted the zoning was not changing, just the applicability of the lot. Chairman Reilly commented that the Board should be consistent with implementing constraints on the general lot as well as the density bonus lot(s) so there aren’t different standards being used to determine whether or not a conventional subdivision is being proposed or a subdivision with a density bonus.

The consensus of the Board was to have Planner Slagle’s office draft a proposed constrained lands ordinance for review.

East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – 3/11/09

Possible Additional 2009 Planning Board Goals

Mr. Gardner commented that Abigail Jones who is an Agricultural Outreach Specialist with North Jersey Resource Conservation and Development had provided him with information regarding the river friendly farm concept. The Gardners are trying to get their farm assessed as river friendly. Mr. Gardner explained there are criteria such as how close livestock can get to swales and streams and how is manure dealt with. Mr. Gardner believes the guidelines and regulations North Jersey Conservation and Development has established may be of concern to East Amwell because their criteria may impact what Township residents can do in the future.

Mr. Gardner suggested the Township Committee explore where New Jersey Resource Conservation and Development is headed and what their powers are. Mr. Gardner conveyed that Ms. Jones is willing to provide a presentation if there is interest. Mr. Kneski asked that Mr. Gardner forward this information to Clerk Stahl.

Discussion: Update from Ag Advisory on Status of Acreage Requirement For Horses

Ms. Lenox explained the Committee intends to reach out to other Townships to see if they have existing ordinances or guidelines established for horses. Ms. Andrews will forward the current Board of Health water regulations/requirements to the Committee. Ms. Lenox indicated there will be additional discussion on the matter at the 3/16/09 Ag meeting and she will provide an update to the Planning Board next month.

Mr. Gardner suggested the possibility of limiting where horses can be pastured, in areas such as steep slopes and wetlands.

Oral Reports

FOSPC – Mr. Gilbert noted that the State required Farmland Preservation Plan was sent in and comments have been received. FOSPC is now in the process of addressing each of the comments. Mr. Gilbert then noted the CADB provided a ranking indicating the Township has two farms that are ranked very highly, the Thompson Farm and the Zuegner Farm. He expressed optimism over the ranking but noted the County is requiring the applicants to agree to a $9,500.00 per acre option in East Amwell and that might be perceived as too low. Additionally, Mr. Gilbert noted FOSPC agreed to write a letter of support to have Wertsville Road declared a scenic by-way.

Agricultural Advisory Committee – Ms. Lenox noted the Committee had discussed establishing minimum acreage requirements for horses. She also commented that the Committee intends to hold another Farm Forum.

Environmental Commission – Mr. Sageser noted a lengthy discussion took place on whether or not to update the Natural Resource Inventory. He also commented on a discussion regarding sustainable communities and an ANJEC presentation on the subject scheduled for 3/30/09 at the County.

SM Smart Growth – No report.

Stormwater Committee – No report.

COAH – No report.

Wastewater Management – No report.

PB Secretary – No report.

Chairman – Mr. Reilly noted he attended the County Planning Board’s recycling meeting last week and said the County plans to implement a number of initiatives. He commented that Alexandria Township is looking into a recycling company that weighs residents’ curbside recycling and gives them points that are redeemable at local stores. Apparently the program has been quite successful in urban areas and various Township’s are looking into its applicability in Hunterdon County. Mr. Reilly also noted the new DEP septic regulations requiring all septic systems be inspected annually and pumped every three years.

East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – 3/11/09

Open to the Public

A motion by Rob Gilbert, seconded by Roger DeLay to open to the public was unanimously approved. Frances Gavigan of 123 Wertsville Road came forward and commented on the constrained lands discussion referencing the Township’s tax map and explaining that Block 25 Lot 16 is a good example of a property owner who would not be able to use all of their 43 acres due to the land being bisected by a gas pipeline, an easement and a stream. Additionally, Ms. Gavigan referred to an earlier discussion and asked the Board to “look before they leap” into any decisions on determining where horse pastures can be located.

A motion by Linda Lenox, seconded by Roger DeLay to close to the public was unanimously approved.

Presentation of Vouchers

A motion by Fred Gardner, seconded by Rob Gilbert to pay the vouchers as listed on the agenda was unanimously approved.

Adjournment

Chairman Reilly adjourned the meeting at 9:18 PM.

________________________________

Maria Andrews, Administrative Officer