Dear Editors:
On Tuesday, Jan. 5, the Haddonfield Planning Board will likely vote to approve or deny the application for the subdivision of 605 Warwick Road. Approval will divide a landmark gateway home and property into three home lots. Denial will not only preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood, but in addition send a powerful message to the residents of Haddonfield that our Planning Board is prepared to corral the unbridled over development of our town. As the stewards of land use, the citizens of Haddonfield rely on the Planning Board to preserve and protect the character of our town and the diversity of our neighborhoods.
To the credit of our commissioners, a special Land Use Committee was formed at the outset of 2015 with the purpose to review land use and development issues in the Borough and make recommendations regarding ordinance changes that may be warranted. In November this committee released a report in which a number of the findings reinforced the very reasons a group of citizen “objectors” formally opposed the application over seven months of hearings in 2014. Although the objectors exposed numerous issues, the most significant objections surrounded the conflict with Haddonfield’s Master Plan, lot conformity and the mitigation effectiveness and ongoing management of the storm water drainage system. Our engineer’s testimony regarding the deficiencies of the proposed drainage system became the basis for the Planning Board’s original denial in December of 2014.
Over the course of 2015 the development group filed an appeal of the Planning Board’s decision only to suspend the process and submit a new application this past September. Although the application includes a more comprehensive stormwater management system we, the objectors, contend the same key issues remain and now reinforced by the Land Use Committee’s report.
The report recognizes the conflict which exists with our Master Plan in regard to preserving the visual attractiveness of our Gateway Highways stating that: “Major entry points into a community create important and lasting impressions of its character and livability. Optimally, these so-called “gateway” streets create a cohesive identity and reflect the desired image of a community. In Haddonfield, Kings Highway, Chews Landing, Warwick and West End are almost universally recognized as critical entry points whose character should be protected.”
The report goes on to state that the 2001 changes in zoning “may have actually diminished the protection afforded to some or all of these streets’ character. Concerns have been expressed that now-conforming subdivisions might lead to inappropriately small lots or that homes could be reconstructed in a way which is incompatible with the surrounding streetscape because of the home’s size or location on the lot.”
605 Warwick is one of those properties where the zoning change removed the protection and has enabled the opportunity for subdivision and the destruction of a gateway home and property. There are numerous other gateway properties, which remain vulnerable to subdivision due to the oversight.
The report addresses sustainable storm water practices with the following: “Flooding is already a problem in many parts of the Borough and some have suggested that the problems are becoming more pronounced due to perceived increases in impervious cover. Whether or not this is the case, there is no doubt that more effective and sustainable stormwater management practices can help to alleviate flooding problems. We suggest that the Environmental Commission and Sustainable Haddonfield be asked to investigate opportunities to strengthen our ordinances in this regard, including measures to ensure that green technologies and other stormwater facilities are properly maintained over the long term.”
The adjacent neighbors can attest to the impact of storm water runoff from 605 with flooding on their properties and 24/7-sump pump engagement. Regardless of the fact that the individual lots fall within the impervious coverage requirements, it’s common sense that the parcel of land with three homes will have significantly more impervious coverage than what currently exists. Furthermore, although a new stormwater capture and drywell plan has been submitted, the effectiveness of any system remains suspect until proven. There are numerous drywell discharge systems throughout town that were approved, but failing to perform as calculated, leaving affected neighbors with little recourse outside of legal action. Once approved and constructed, the borough has no responsibility for performance or maintenance. In addition, the New Jersey State “Best Practices for Stormwater Management” discourages mechanical systems in favor of sustainable or natural methods for stormwater mitigation. The developer’s plan offers no sustainable or green methodology.
Another finding acknowledges the ambiguity of the definition of lot depth within the ordinances. “This definition is confusing when it’s applied to corner and irregular lots. Indirectly, it also affects lot frontage requirements. We recommend that John Laprocido work with Borough Engineer Todd Day to draft ordinance revisions to ensure that all lots have an appropriate depth.”
One of our strongest arguments in the first go around was lot conformity. We identified that the lot fronting Treaty Elms is non-conforming and therefore requires a variance. We argued that the lot did not meet the minimum depth requirement as designated by the R4 ordinance.
At the December 2014 meeting the Planning Board concluded that because a corner lot by definition consists of two front yards and two side yards, such a lot has no rear lot line and therefore is exempt from the requirement to conform to lot depth. This defies common sense. Every lot has a depth regardless of whether the term rear yard is included in the lot definition or not. No lot should be exempt from a lot depth requirement. Furthermore, the lot depth parameters of the various zoning ordinances make no exception for corner lots. The board agreed that the definition was ambiguous however on a 5 to 4 vote they approved the lot to be conforming.
What’s the point in having definitions if they can be manipulated? And if the corner lot definition creates confusion then why wouldn’t/shouldn’t the board defer to the definition of a standard lot? How can any lot be approved without consideration for the depth? A new vote on lot conformity is required.
The “objectors” group has invested considerable resources to protect our neighborhood and provide a platform for all citizens to stand up and speak out regarding the inappropriate development going on throughout Haddonfield.
Citizen attendance at the meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 5 affords every resident the opportunity to voice their concern and frustrations with the exploitation by developers who take advantage of what little open space remains in Haddonfield. As citizens we not only have the right, but the responsibility to protect the character and charm of our town.
Jon Simonson
The Haddonfield Planning Board meeting will see citizen’s comments on the Warwick 605 subdivision. The meeting will take place on Jan. 5 at Borough Hall at 7:30 p.m.
