EAST AMWELL PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

7:30 PM East Amwell Municipal Building

April 8, 2009 - Meeting

Call to Order, Attendance and Pledge of Allegiance

This meeting of the East Amwell Planning Board was opened on April 8, 2009 at 7:38 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 April 2, 2009.”

Present: Fred Gardner

Bela Kamensky

Pete Kneski

Don Reilly, Chairman

Dart Sageser

Roger DeLay

Planner Slagle (Filling in for Planner Banisch)

Excused: Rob Gilbert

Gail Glashoff

Linda Lenox

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 Roger DeLay to close to the public was unanimously approved.

Review of Minutes

A motion by Roger DeLay, seconded by Fred Gardner to approve the Board’s 3/11/09 minutes was unanimously approved.

New Business – Other

Discussion: Letter from Jeanne Zuegner dated 3/11/09, re: Site Plan Requirement

Present for the discussion was Jeanne Zuegner. The Zuegners own Block 17, Lot 34 on Dutch Lane which is an 80 acre parcel with an 18^th Century barn located on it. The owners would like to preserve the barn and construct an apartment within the existing shed wing of the original barn. There will be no changes to the footprint of the existing building and the Zuegners meet all of the conditions under section 92 of the Township’s Land Management ordinance.

The Zuegners had been told that their proposed project may require a major site plan and if that is the case, they would like to request a waiver. Chairman Reilly explained that he had spoken with Engineer O’Neal and Attorney Norman regarding this matter. Engineer O’Neal believes the project to be a permitted use in the zone and he believes it is site plan exempt. Chairman Reilly addressed Ms. Zuegner and indicated that she should have no problem obtaining the necessary approvals and permits from the Zoning Officer and Construction Official. The Board wished Ms. Zuegner luck with her project and she left the meeting at this time.

East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – 4/8/09

Mr. Kneski questioned whether or not this project requires conditional use approval because the Zuegners are constructing an apartment. He clarified that while a conditional use is required in order to create the apartment, the Zuegners requested that the site plan approval which is normally associated with conditional use approval, be waived. It was noted that if the Zuegners did not meet all of the conditions in the ordinance they would need a conditional use variance from the Board of Adjustment, and even though they meet all of the conditions under the ordinance, Mr. Kneski believes they are still required to obtain conditional use approval (with site plan waiver) from the Planning Board.

Planner Slagle indicated she had the same question. She said that the apartment in the barn is a permitted use, and a conditional use variance would be required if the whole barn is being converted into a secondary dwelling unit. Mr. Kneski commented that he believes the Zuegners need approval from the Planning Board for the conditional use component of the project. He said even if the Planning Board decides to waive the site plan component; the applicant is still required to meet the conditional use element of the ordinance.

Chairman Reilly noted that according to Engineer O’Neal, in the definition section of the ordinance a site plan is not required under the project conditions outlined by the Zuegners and the project did not need to come before the Planning Board. He said the project is site plan exempt. Joanna agreed that if the Zuegners are planning to construct an accessory apartment then it is a permitted use that does not need to come to the Planning Board, but if the barn will be converted into a completely new dwelling unit, then the Zuegners would need to get conditional use approval from the Board. Mr. Sageser noted the letter submitted to the Board from Ms. Zuegner indicates they plan to construct an apartment within the existing shed wing of the original barn. Chairman Reilly stated he believes this is what Engineer O’Neal’s interpretation was as well and that it met all of the conditions and therefore the project did not need to come before the Planning Board.

Chairman Reilly stated he will get something in writing from Attorney Norman and if there are any issues he will notify the Board and Ms. Zuegner.

Discussion: Review of Draft Ordinance – Constrained Lands

Planner Slagle drafted a memo dated 4/7/09 outlining two alternative lists of environmental factors to be included in the Natural Resource Constraint Ordinance that is intended to apply to the Amwell Valley and Sourland Mountain Zones. Table A identifies typical deductions found in other municipal ordinances such as floodplains, wetlands, streams, slopes greater than 25%, slopes greater than 12% but less than 25%, NJDEP required wetland transition areas and a 300’ buffer to category 1 waterways. Table B depicts the Natural Resource Constraints Ordinance using only the factors applied to the Open Lands Option in the Amwell Valley Zone, such as floodplains, wetlands and slopes greater than 12%.

At the Planning Board’s 3/11/09 meeting, Table A was reviewed which identifies the environmental constraints that are typically deducted from developable land with regard to calculating density. During the discussion at this meeting, a question was raised as to whether the Natural Resource Constraints Ordinance should include only those deductions currently required to qualify for the Amwell Valley open lands density bonus, which permits a 50% increase in the number of units, compared to conventional 10 acre lots.

East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – 4/8/09

With regard to the Open Lands density bonus, in order to qualify, 75% of the tract has to be retained as “open lands” on which a dwelling may be constructed. The definition of open lands excludes floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes greater than 12%, which are not farmable. However, DEP imposed constraints such as wetlands transition areas, are not currently excluded since wetlands transition areas are allowed to continue to be farmed as long as they were being farmed prior to the DEP regulations being imposed.

Chairman Reilly clarified that right now as far as Natural Resource constraints, the only area where this comes into play is with the Open Lands ratio because the Planning Board amended the definition. He stated hypothetically, if someone has 100 acres in the Amwell Valley district and they wanted to subdivide it, theoretically they could get 10 lots. Right now nothing is being deducted from the calculation, but if you were to use the Open Lands ratio, you would have to deduct easements, floodplains and any other identified item in the ordinance. He noted that the bonus the Board was trying to give to developers has been diminished. Chairman Reilly said the Board wants to encourage people to use the bonus so building lots can be created on 1.5 acres with the vast majority of the parcel becoming preserved land. He said one reason for implementing Natural Resource constraints is because we don’t want to diminish Open Lands or give applicants credit for developing areas that are not developable.

Chairman Reilly commented that the Board should be consistent on both sides of the equation—with Open Lands as well as with Conventional Subdivisions. He noted that there is an argument that 15 acre zoning in the Sourland Mountain was a compromise because the Board had data justifying 25 acre minimum zoning. Chairman Reilly stated that the Sourland Mountain zone is an area the Township really doesn’t want to see further developed therefore wetlands, floodplains etc. should be deducted out of the available land.

Mr. Kamensky asked if there was any way to get this information mapped out using GIS to show which areas would be impacted. Planner Slagle commented that it could be done as a generalization and noted that natural resource constraints were really “site specific.” She cautioned that often DEP data regarding wetlands is not accurate and may not provide a good representation of what constraints would really be removed.

Mr. Gardner expressed some confusion with the constraints listed in the tables provided by Planner Slagle. Chairman Reilly clarified that if the Board agreed to adopt Table A it would apply to all subdivisions including Open Lands. It was noted that the definition of Open Lands would not change because a developer may want to use some Open Lands for farming that would not be used for development.

Chairman Reilly noted that there are two separate issues with separate objectives to be considered when reviewing Open Lands vs. Conventional Subdivisions: (1) How many units can be created (2) Is there enough area to preserve and build those intended units plus any bonus units.

Mr. DeLay commented that the concept of taking constraints out for the purpose of calculating developable land and then possibly adding some constrained areas back in because the area may be actively farmed doesn’t make sense. Chairman Reilly commented that a developer shouldn’t get credit for land that can’t be developed, but when a developer is proposing clustering, it should be as viable an alternative as possible and actively farmed land should not be restricted. He said from a policy perspective he believed the concept was logical and is a legitimate planning tool.

East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – 4/8/09

Mr. DeLay asked Planner Slagle if there was a way to determine what percent of the remaining developable land in East Amwell falls into a constrained category. Planner Slagle indicated she could run a GIS model but cautioned the Board that the DEP data is only about 65% accurate and the data is from 2002 because DEP hasn’t completed their data update yet.

Chairman Reilly asked Mr. DeLay to explain his concern. Mr. DeLay commented that he wanted to make sure property owners will be treated fairly. Mr. Sageser noted that every piece of property is different and every developer will approach subdivisions differently even though everyone is playing by the same rules. Mr. Sageser said his experience with wetlands is that determining where they are has to be done by “real” inspection, not “aerial” inspection.

Chairman Reilly noted that there is the argument that the Board doesn’t want conventional development in the Valley at all, but rather the minimum amount of clustering because it is an agricultural district. He commented that “fairness” is following the process and the issue is really good planning and doing things that are consistent with the Master Plan.

Mr. DeLay commented that if the Board wished to limit development, the zoning could be changed to a 25 acre minimum. Mr. Gardner noted that the Township has provided land owners with the alternative of selling their development rights. He added that this has been a policy the Township has carried out with enthusiasm and money to back it. Mr. Gardner said that by providing the type of environment that exists in the Valley zone the Township has given value to the land in that area. He noted that many landowners have received high values for selling their development rights which they would not have gotten if the zoning was 25 acres.

Chairman Reilly noted that when the zoning was changed to a 10 acre minimum, there was clear rationale to justify 25 acre zoning but there was no confidence the 25 acre zoning would have been sustainable in the Courts. He said that was forging new ground, but the issue of constrained lands is not new. He said one could argue that East Amwell is behind the times because the standards being discussed tonight are applied in many Townships that profess the same issues we do in their Master Plans.

It was the consensus of the Board to have Planner Slagle draft an ordinance consistent with proposed Table A.

Discussion: Solar Panel Article Dated 3/17/09

Chairman Reilly commented that he wanted to make the Board aware of this Star Ledger article exploring the issue of whether or not solar panels can/should be considered impervious coverage. The article touches upon large scale solar panel arrays being requested by large companies such as Verizon and Johnson & Johnson who are implementing renewable energy practices at their office sites.

Planner Slagle commented on the utilization of wind power also becoming a renewable energy trend.

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

Chairman Reilly noted this matter will be carried to the Board’s May 13, 2009 meeting.

East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – 4/8/09

Oral Reports

FOSPC – Mr. Gardner commented on the ongoing review of the Farmland Preservation Plan and noted that the Zuegner and Thompson properties received a high ranking on the State and County report but were shot down by the County’s preservation program. Mr. Gardner explained East Amwell has its PIG

program and the County has their PIG program which supersedes ours and incorporated all of the Municipality’s preservation efforts within their jurisdiction. The County then put a requirement for the land owners, on anything that they were going to preserve, of accepting an acreage bid of $9500 per acre for preservation. Both the Zuegner and Thompson properties had indications of assessed values significantly higher than $9500 per acre and withdrew their preservation efforts. Mr. Gardner indicated FOSPC may still pursue possible avenues to preserve these properties with or without County help.

Agricultural Advisory Committee – No report given.

Environmental Commission – Mr. Sageser reported that the Commission was working on their 2009 goals which will likely include a sustainable community initiative. Mr. Kneski commented that solar energy options are being reviewed for the Township building and the school.

SM Smart Growth Grant – No report given.

Stormwater Committee – No report given.

COAH – No report given.

Wastewater Management – Mr. DeLay reported the new deadline to submit the Township’s Wastewater Management plan is 8/31/09.

PB Secretary – Ms. Andrews asked the Board for their blessing to change her hours slightly in the summer in order to accommodate her son being able to participate in summer camp. Ms. Andrews indicated she currently works 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM and is requesting to work 9:30 AM – 3:30 PM for approximately 6 weeks in the summer, from the end of June through the month of July. Chairman Reilly noted the Board had no objection to the request and indicated if Township Administrator Matheny required something in writing, he would be happy to provide documentation. Ms. Andrews thanked the Board.

Chairman – No report given.

Open to the Public

A motion by Roger DeLay, seconded by Bela Kamensky to open to the public was unanimously approved. Frances Gavigan of 123 Wertsville Road came forward and provided the Board with a color copy of the façade treatments being proposed for the County Bridge Project on Wertsville Road. Ms. Gavigan offered the information in the event the Board wished to make any comments. Chairman Reilly noted that the Board will defer comment to the Township Committee. Mr. Kneski noted that the Township Committee will defer comment to the Historic Preservation Commission. Ms. Gavigan noted that all comments needed to be received by the County by 4/28/09. Both Chairman Reilly and Mr. Kneski thanked Ms. Gavigan for taking such an active lead in keeping the Township informed on all of the details of the Bridge Project.

East Amwell Township Planning Board Minutes – 4/8/09

A motion by Pete Kneski, seconded by Roger DeLay to close to the public was unanimously approved.

Presentation of Vouchers

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

Adjournment

Chairman Reilly adjourned the meeting at 10:07 PM.

________________________________

Maria Andrews, Administrative Officer