605 Warwick Subdivision Planning Board hearing resumes:

Tuesday, January 5th 7:30 PM

Borough Hall
We are at the 11th hour. With testimony and cross examination
of the new application completed during the December 2015
meeting, the hearing will resume with public comment. It is
very likely that after two years of debate, the Planning Board
will deliberate and once again vote to approve or deny the
application.
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, January 5th
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!!!
Please read on for a summary of this saga and the issues that
continue to support a denial by the Planning Board.
After seven (7) months of presentations, testimony and citizen
objection, the application was denied at the December 2014 Planning
Board hearing. The basis for the denial was cited as inconclusive data
to support the effectiveness of the drainage/drywell system to reduce
the amount of existing storm water runoff and the assignment of
system maintenance. A group of objectors represented by Sal
Siciliano, Esq. played a pivotal role in exposing:

deficiencies in the application

breeches in the hearing procedures
the inaccuracy of stormwater reduction calculations
the conceptual rather than specific design of the drainage
system
the unconformity of the proposed lot facing Treaty Elms
the destructive impact on neighborhood character,
the loss of significant vegetation and mature trees,
incongruity with the Master Plan regarding protecting the visual
attractiveness of our Gateway roads (Warwick is specifically
identified)

the potential traffic and pedestrian safety issues

the absence of architectural renderings of the actual homes to be
constructed

With the application denied, the developer then filed an appeal of the
decision with the Superior Court only to suspend the suit in August,
choosing to submit a new application rather than risking an
undesirable decision of the court.
Although the new application includes more extensive landscape and
drainage system plans, we believe issues remain regarding the
approval of the application. Our concerns are reinforced by the
recent report submitted by the Haddonfield Land Use
Committee. This committee was initiated at the start 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. What follows are direct excerpts (in red) from the report
along with commentary as to how they apply directly to the proposed
605 Warwick subdivision.
Sustainable Stormwater Practices. 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. After
their preliminary review, expert consulting help may be needed to
translate recommended approaches into specific ordinance form.
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, its common sense that the
parcel of land will have significantly more impervious coverage than
what exists currently. 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

NJ State Best Practices for Stormwater Management discourages
mechanical systems in favor of sustainable or natural methods for
stormwater mitigation. The developers plan offers no sustainable or
green methodology.
Gateway or High Streets. 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. It has also been suggested that other streets (such as
Washington, Westmont, Station and Hinchman) also play an important
role in framing the towns character. However, it is unclear whether
the 2001 zoning changes, which generally refined and
improved our land use code, 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 homes size
or location on the lot.
Zone designations and bulk requirements along these streets
(Gateway) should better reflect their existing character.
605 Warwick (along with other properties on Warwick) represents one
of those properties that was affected in a negative manner by the
zoning changes. Prior to 2001 this section of Warwick was zoned R2
which requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft., however the 2001
zoning change to R4 reduced the minimum to 9,600 sq. ft. The change
was an oversight and clearly contradicts the intent of the Master Plan
to preserve the visual attractiveness of Gateway Highways.
Approval of the application will only encourage the subdivision
of additional properties where the zoning changes have
adversely impacted the protection of our streets and
neighborhoods character.
Lot Depth Definition. This definition is confusing when its 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 nonconforming 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. The parameters of the various zoning ordinances
make no exception of lot depth minimums 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. Whats the point in having
definitions if they are not clear? And if the corner lot definition creates
confusion then why wouldnt/shouldnt 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.
Lastly the new application fails to provide clarity on what kind of
homes will be constructed. The developer has submitted an
architectural rendering for only one home leaving the outcome of the
remaining lots unknown. If the subdivision is approved without
definitive architectural plans, the Planning Board will no longer have
control over what is eventually built.
Hope to see you on January 5th.