MINUTES OF LAND USE BOARD MEETING
June 1, 2009
A
regular meeting of the Land Use Board of the Borough of Paulsboro was called to
order by the Chairman, Wayne Wurtz, on June 1,
2009 at approximately 7:00
p.m.
Open Public
Meetings Act was read by John Alice, Esquire, Solicitor.
The
Board saluted the flag with the Pledge of Allegiance
Roll
Call: Members Present: John Burzichelli, Robert DeAngelo,
Allen Gray, Larry Haynes, Rita
Kelly, Leon Manchester, James Salvatore, James Scott, James Sharper, Alice
Williams, Wayne Wurtz, and
Phil Zimm.
Absent:
Inez Nelson
Also
present: John Alice,
Solicitor, Melanie Adamson, PE,
Board’s Engineer, Marc Kamp, Zoning Officer
A
motion was made by Rita Kelly seconded by Leon Manchester to adopt the minutes
from the meeting of April 6, 2009.
Voice Vote: All ayes in
favor – no against – no abstentions. (There was no meeting in May of 2009.)
An
application was submitted by Bohemia Development Co. for a Minor Site Plan for
property known as
Guy
Killen, Esquire, attorney for the applicants stated that Bohemia Development Co. is a Delaware
Corporation authorized to do business in the State of New Jersey and that the
applicants are requesting minor site plan approval for the existing house on
the subject property, converting the garage to two bedrooms. The applicants plan to open a group home
at the subject property.
The
following persons were sworn in to testify:
1. Richard Clark – is the property
manager and will handle the construction.
2. Ted Joseph – although not a
principal of the corporation he is the Director of Development.
Mr.
Killen stated that the report of the Board’s engineer has been reviewed
and he would like to address the comments contained therein.
Mr.
Clark testified that they wish to turn the existing home into a five bedroom
Group Home for ten residents. He
testified that all of the houses managed by the corporation are licensed and
well taken care of. The
existing house has three bedrooms and they wish to add two additional bedrooms
by converting the existing garage.
There will only be a total of ten residents in the property.
There
will be no additions to the outside of the property.
There
will be one 12 passenger van for the property parked in the driveway. There is space for three vehicles for
off street parking. The van is used
to transport the residents to work or their activities and the other parking
spaces would be used by the caretakers.
The
residents are not permitted to have vehicles. Other than visitors for the residents
there will be no other vehicles parked at the site.
There
will be no pets at the residence.
When
asked what the residents do during the day he responded that most go to day
care in Swedesboro or work.
When
asked what the scheduled visiting hours would be he responded that there are no
set visiting hours as most visitors would only come to the home for a short
visit or to take a resident home for a few days or the weekend. Any visitors do have to call first to be
sure the resident is available.
This
operation is mainly for developmentally disabled adults – for years were
described as mentally retarded. There will be no wheelchair clients. No more
than ten residents – two to a bedroom.
There
will be no facilities for staff to sleep. There will be staff at the
residence 24 hours however, they
are working shifts.
When
asked how the residents are found for the home, he responded that the clients
come from the State of New Jersey Department of Disabled – the residents
are eligible for Medicaid . The
Division decides as to the eligibility of a client. A severely chronically disabled person
before the age of 22 would most likely continue to be housed in a hospital
facility.
Melanie
Adamson, the Board’s Engineer reviewed the letter she submitted to the
Board. The application does comply
with all set backs and other zoning requirements.
The
corporation is regulated and licensed by the State of
The
plan submitted did not call for any buffering and the applicant responded they planned
to leave the landscaping as is.
This
project will provide 10 affordable housing credits – 5 COAH credits to
the Borough.
A
group home is to be treated as if it is any residence.
Members
of the Board raised the following questions:
1. How many staff members?
The applicant responded – 3 members during the day –
2 at night.
2. Are the staff members certified –
what are the qualifications?
The
applicant responded – for
regular care givers a GED or high school education is required. Some supervisors or counselors are
required to have a Bachelor’s Degree – some will have a
Master’s Degree in Behavorial Studies. There will be no nurse on duty, however,
there is a nurse on call.
Any
workers must be fingerprinted and have a criminal check. Caregivers will work three shifts. There is someone at the residence at all
times.
3. What is the make up of the residents?
The
applicant responded - At this
point the plan is have residents between the ages of 21 to 25 and up. They like to keep the ages consistent. The facility will be co-ed. The residents will eat their meals in
the residence and they will cook with staff members. Laundry will be done by the residents in
house.
4. Where do the residents come from –
are they local?
The
applicant responded - They
can come from anywhere in the State, however, they do like to have people from the area.
5. Is there a screening process ?
The
applicant responded - Yes there is
a waiting list – and all residents have psychological and behavior
screening, as well as physical screening.
6. Would you be willing to fence in the
property ?
The applicant responded - Yes –
they have other establishments in other neighborhoods and they have had no
problem satisfying requests.
7. Does it meet square footage
requirements?
The
applicant responded - yes, the
square footage requirements for each bedroom with two residents, does meet
requirements.
8. How many bathrooms ?
The
applicant responded - three full
bathrooms and ½ bath for the ten residents.
9. The term “foreign profit
corporation” was used in describing this corporation. What does that mean. ?
The
applicant’s attorney responded - Any corporation not originally from NJ
has to be recorded with the Secretary of State of New Jersey as a
“foreign” corporation.
This corporation is from
10.
Can you give more information on the screening process – what happens if
a resident does not follow the rules ?
The
applicant responded - The residents
are not allowed out by themselves, however, they cannot force a resident to
stay. Some residents do smoke and
the resident will agree to a certain number of cigarettes allowed a day. They will be required to smoke outside
– We are willing to put up a fence and landscaping so that neighbors will
not be bothered by the wandering residents.
11. How much are you spending in
renovations?
The
applicant responded – between
$50,000.00 to $100,000.00
12. Is there any time the house is without
staff?
The
applicant responded – any
time there is a resident at the house there must be a staff member
present.
A
motion was made by Leon Manchester, second by Robert DeAngelo,
to open the meeting to the public.
1. Jessie Lucas of
a. Any sign naming the facility –
Applicant response - no.
b. Any investigation done as to the change
in property values in the area – it may be hard to sell the neighboring
properties.
Applicant
response - A national study was done and was determined that property values
continued to climb as if the facility was not there.
c. She has a family member that is developmentally
challenged and that individual is hard to control. Do you feel confident about
controlling residents?
Applicant
response - The program chooses the
residents carefully – they are only paid for residents who are there
– would not choose to house a resident that would have behavior problems.
2. Pat Kelly of 3rd and
3. Mary Morina of
a. Where do you get your clients?
Applicant
response – None are referred by the Court – all come from
mentally-physically challenged facilities. No clients are accepted with
substance abuse – We have 19 facilities throughout the State.
4. Mary Ann Costa of
a. How many of these types of houses are in
town?
The
Board responded– there are at least two – one on Vanemann and one on
5. Joseph Burk of
a. How many residents can you put in the
house now?
Applicant
response – Six, there are
currently three bedrooms.
b.
Any other work to be done besides
the additional bedrooms?
Applicant
response – interior work in
the kitchen – new cabinets.
c. Do you pay property taxes?
Applicant
response - Yes just as if any
other resident.
6. Leona Shaw of
a. She lives next door with her husband and
three children (all under age of 10).
b. This is a wonderful community but she
does not feel comfortable with this facility moving in. She is not sure she wants to continue to
live here.
7. Kevin Shaw, husband of Mrs Shaw, of
a. When the residents are outside smoking
who is watching them. Are the
residents ever unsupervised on some occasion. Do the residents have the capability to
be out and about in the community on their own?
Applicant
response - The facility is not a prison – the residents do not wander
about on their own –
8. Nino Saya of 326
Nassau Avenue, Paulsboro, NJ was sworn in and made the comment that he would
like a fence around the property.
9. John Romano of
a.
Is this a moot point – does
the Planning Board have a say in this?
The
Board responded – As
previously explained – they have the right to have a group home in the
neighborhood. This is mandated by the State
b. Elaborate on the qualifications of the staff
?
Applicant
response - must have a high school
diploma or GED – must be
between the ages of 20 to 40 – no certifications are required but there
is training and they must successfully complete a 30 day training period.
c. Can the facility be converted to a half
way house?
Applicant
response – they do not operate half way houses.
10. William E. Stell
of
a. He wants it in writing that the
residents will not hurt anything or anyone – or that there will be no
change in property values or the owner will pay the difference.
b. Has a question as to the allowable
square footage ?
The
Board responded – only the bedrooms have a square footage requirement and
the applicant has met that requirement.
c. What is going on with the sprinkler
system.
The
applicant responded - It is not installed yet – waiting for a permit.
d. He wants it in writing that the facility
will not be a halfway house.
e. You stated that at night there are two
caretakers at all times – what if there is an incident and someone has to
go to the hospital?
Applicant
response - The State mandates
that there must be two caregivers at all times – the resident will go to
the hospital by ambulance until a supervisor on call can go to the hospital
with the resident.
11. Keith Cutler of
a. He is worried about it becoming a
halfway house.
Applicant
response – no it will not be
a halfway house.
12. Jackie Pavone
of
a. How much does the State mandate
you. If someone gets out on the
street and hurts our children what are our options. What are the options if the residents
cause a repeated problem in the neighborhood.
Applicant
response - he hopes the
neighbors would ring the doorbell – speak to the supervisor or care
givers – they are more than willing to work with the neighbors and you
have the same options available to you as you would with any neighbor you have
a problem with.
b. How much does the State control you?
Applicant
response – The State sets
standards as to what type of food you can provide and as to the operation of the facility.
13. Albert Mossbrucker
of
a. What type of security is there?
Applicant
response – there is an internal security system. If a window is opened there is a buzzer
which alerts the care giver.
14. John Paladino
of
a. Where do the patients come from –
where are they physically located now.
Applicant
Response- some are in a development
center, some are in State facilities such as Ancora. This is part of the program where they
are taking an individual from a State facility or hospital and putting them in
a home.
15. Judy McKenzie of
a. Does the definition of developmentally
handicap include the mentally ill?
Applicant
Response – yes, the residents will be developmentally disabled as well,
not just mentally ill.
b. Will the van have any markings?
Applicant
Response – no, it will just be a plain white passenger van.
c. If there is any way you could eliminate
the two extra bedrooms and just the three bedrooms she would be supportive.
16. Jake Lazevnick
of
a. Thank you Judy for your well spoken
comments and questions. We are not
a neighborhood of bigots and we do believe in helping people.
b. We are concerned with the safety of our
children. We are afraid and we
would like some guarantees.
17. Joe Lisa of
There
being no other members of the public wishing to speak on this matter, a motion
was made by Allen Gray, seconded by James Scott to close the meeting to the
public.
The
Board requested a five minute recess.
The recess ended and the Board reconvened.
The
Board had questions of the applicant as follows:
a. During the day, the residents are at
rehabilitation or at other activities.
Do all residents leave the facility ?
Applicant
response - Yes, unless a resident
is sick – usually they are out from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m,
some casesuntil 4:00p.m.
b. It is our understanding that you have
never been before a Board before, Is that correct?
Applicant
response - Yes, we are not required to appear before a Board for permission to
operate this type of facility.
c. The Board does appreciate your being
here to help bring this before the neighbors – hopefully to stop any
rumors or fears about this application.
d. The Board understands that the immediate
residents are looking for a fence to the front plane of the house, a six foot
white vinyl fence to the street on the right hand side.
There
being no other questions or comments from the Board, a motion was made by Phil Zimm, seconded by Rita Kelly, to approve the
applicant’s Site Plan based on the testimony that there will only be
developmentally disabled residents, and that the applicant install a six foot
white vinyl fence to the front plane of the house rather than in line with the
back plane of the house. Roll Call
Vote: In favor – J. Burzichelli, R. DeAngelo, A.
Gray, L. Haynes, R. Kelly, L. Manchester, J. Salvatore, J. Scott, J. Sharper,
A. Williams, W. Wurtz and P. Zimm. Against – None Abstentions – None.
Ian
Williams of
A
motion was made by Phil Zimm, seconded by Allen
Gray to open the meeting to the
public. There being no one from the
public wishing to speak on this matter, a motion was made by John Burzichelli, seconded by Phil Zimm
to close this portion of the meeting to the public.
There
being no other questions or comments from the Board, a motion was made by Phil Zimm, seconded by Leon Manchester to approve the
applicant’s request for a fence permit to replace the existing four foot
fence with a six foot wood privacy fence.
Roll Call Vote In favor – J. Burzichelli,
R. DeAngelo, A. Gray, L. Haynes, R. Kelly, L.
Manchester, J. Salvatore, J. Scott, J. Sharper, A. Williams,
As to
the application submitted by Affordable Housing Development (Application No.
V-02-09) for property known as
Block 61, Lot 3, 200 West Monroe Street, the applicant appeared and requested
that the matter be continued as he wished to retain counsel. He was advised that he needed to
re-notice as the notice previously forwarded was not complete and he needed to
obtain a two hundred foot list and notify all parties on same. Further as this was a non-conforming lot
he needed to contact contiguous land owners as to the option of purchasing
property to conform. The
application was adjourned.
An
application was submitted by Valerie Smith (V-03-09) for property known as
Ms.
Smith testified that she received a 200 foot list from the Borough and notified
the neighbors. She had previously
operated a pizza restaurant at the site and at that time the hours of operation
were 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. She
thereafter leased the property to Mr. Kahn who opened a Crown Chicken –
he did not know that the property was not to be opened later. He has been operating Crown Chicken
leaving it open to 3:00 a.m. He is
requesting that the Board allow the facility to be open to at least 1:30 a.m.
as that is when he does the bulk of his business.
Ms.
Smith indicated that she never received any notices from the Police Department
regarding a problem with the facility being open that late – she has
received notices as to other problems such as trash being thrown around and she
has always taken care of that.
The
Board advised Ms. Smith that it was not in the best interests of the citizens
or the community to have the facility open that late. She was asked to contact the Police
Department and meet with the chief to find out what complaints and problems
there are exactly. Then she is to
return to the Board at the next meeting to address same. Next Board meeting is scheduled for July
6, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
An
application (Application No. SD-02-09) was submitted by M and R Builders for a
subdivision for property known as Block 27,
Board
Member Phil Zimm excused himself as he has done
business with Mr. Venuto on other matters.
Mr. Venuto spoke and indicated that he wishes to subdivide the
property to construct a single family dwelling on the vacant portion of the
property. He testified as follows:
1. He received the review letter from
Remington and Vernick.
2. He testified that he is requesting a
design waiver with respect to the cross section of the existing roadway.
3. The existing house does not exceed lot
coverage. The existing house is a
1400 square foot dwelling with the first floor having 700 square feet with a
porch.
4. He agrees to submit the plan for
drainage.
5. He will file the subdivision by deed.
6. Will check with the Tax Assesor as to block and lot.
7. As to parking – there is currently
no off street parking for the existing duplex. He will improve the driveway on
8. The curb and sidewalk will be ripped out
and replaced.
9. The new construction will be facing
10. He will remove the retaining wall on the
new lot and will keep the existing
duplex on the original lot.
There
being no other questions from the Board, a motion was made by Leon Manchester,
seconded by James Sharper to open the meeting to the public.
There
being no questions or comments from the public, a motion was made by Leon
Manchester, seconded by Rita Kelly to close the meeting to the public.
A
motion was made by Robert DeAngelo, seconded by James
Sharper to approve the subdivision and grant the requested design waivers.
Roll
Call Vote: In favor – J. Burzichelli, R. DeAngelo, A.
Gray, L. Haynes, R. Kelly, L. Manchester, J. Scott, J. Sharper, A. Williams,
and W. Wurtz.
Against – None
Abstentions – James Salvatore
The
following Resolutions were presented to the Board and adopted as follows:
2009-15
Dana Kearney-Block 107,
Minor Site Plan Approval with
variances and waivers – variances
side
yard setback - waivers for light
plan detail, storm drainage
plan,
driveway locations, typical floor plans and elevations –
existing
spot elevations and landscaping plans.
Board
requests
repair or replace damages sidewalk and/or curb
the
applicant erect a solid wooden fence around side and back
yard
and comply with COAH and/or growth share requirements.
Public
Hearing April 6, 2009 - Vote In
Favor –J. Burzichelli, R. DeAngelo,
L. Haynes,
and
P. Zimm.
Against – None
Abstentions – None. - memorialized June 1, 2009.
by motion of Leon Manchester,
seconded by James
Sharper - Roll Call Vote – In Favor – J. Burzichelli,
R. DeAngelo , L. Haynes,
J. Salvatore, A. Williams, W. Wurtz, and Phil Zimm
Against None – Abstentions
–none.
2009-16 - Mark English
– Minor Site Plan Approval – Block 106,
Redevelopment
Zone – wishes to convert existing building to a
pizza
restaurant – with site improvements including parking and
signage
– conditions – applicant to present proof that under-
ground
tanks were removed – driveway on
to
the intersection be eliminated – deliveries only once a week by
box
truck – hours of operation 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday
through
Thursday and 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday and
Saturday
– signage to comply with Ordinance – eight booths
for
public with 3 to 4 employees – applicant to comply with
R
and V’s review letter of 4/6/09 – work with professionals for
landscaping
– if parking becomes a problem applicant to return
to
Board. – Public Hearing April
6, 2009 – Granted - Roll Call Vote:
In favor J. Burzichelli,
R. DeAngelo, L. Haynes, I. Nelson, J. Salvatore,
A.
Williams,
W. Wurtz and P. Zimm. Against – None
Abstentions
– None. Memorialized –
6-1-09 – by motion by Leon
Manchester,
second by James Scott, Vote: Roll Call Vote
–
In Favor – J. Burzichelli, R. DeAngelo , L. Haynes, J. Salvatore,
A.
Williams,
W. Wurtz, and Phil Zimm Against None – Abstentions
–none.
2009 -17 William Gibison
– Variance Relief to property Block 106.01
to
erect a 30 foot by 40 foot pole barn – due to irregular shape of
lot and existing wetlands - the barn would
need to be erected 70
feet from property line rather than
110 feet – Public Hearing 4/6/09
Granted
subject to condition that only to be used for personal use
not
commercial use - Roll Call Vote: In
favor J. Burzichelli, R. DeAngelo,
L. Haynes, I. Nelson, J. Salvatore,
A. Williams, W. Wurtz and P. Zimm.
Against – None Abstentions – None. Memorialized
– 6-1-09 – by motion by
Leon Manchester, seconded by James
Sharper, Vote: Roll Call Vote –
In Favor – J. Burzichelli, R.
DeAngelo , L. Haynes, J. Salvatore, A. Williams, W. Wurtz,
and
Phil Zimm Against None – Abstentions
–none.
2009 -18 - Rudolph and Deborah Kappra
– Fence Permit – Block 37
Lot
a
fence to enclose the backyard of the property – will
replace
an existing six foot fence with a solid six foot
cedar
fence to the back plane of the house and then a five (5) foot
solid
cedar fence to the window chiminey area –
Granted
Roll
Call Vote: In favor J. Burzichelli, R. DeAngelo, L. Haynes,
Nelson, J. Salvatore, A. Williams, W.
Wurtz and P. Zimm. Against
– None Abstentions – None. Memorialized – 6-1-09 – by
motion
by Leon Manchester, seconded by James
Sharper Vote: Roll
Call Vote – In Favor – J.
Burzichelli, R. DeAngelo ,
L. Haynes,
J. Salvatore, A. Williams, W. Wurtz, and Phil Zimm Against None
Abstentions –none.
2009-19 John and Cheri Giovannitti – Fence Permit – Block 1.17
solid
vinyl fence to enclose the backyard of the property. – will
have
a one foot lattice top for a total of six feet in height.
Granted
Roll Call Vote: In favor J. Burzichelli, R. DeAngelo, L. Haynes,
I. Nelson, J. Salvatore, A. Williams,
W. Wurtz and P. Zimm.
Against – None Abstentions – None. Memorialized – 6-1-09 –
by motion of Leon Manchester,
seconded by James Scott,
Vote: Roll Call Vote – In Favor
– J. Burzichelli, R. DeAngelo
,
L. Haynes, J. Salvatore, A. Williams,
W. Wurtz, and Phil Zimm
Against None – Abstentions
–none.
A
motion was made by Leon Manchester, seconded by James Sharper, to open the
meeting to the public. There being
no one wishing to speak or address the Board, a motion was made by Leon
Manchester, seconded by James
Scott, to close the meeting to the public.
As to
correspondence, a letter was forwarded to the Board from John Salvatore,
Administrator, as to the violation at
The
Master Plan re-examination must be reviewed and adopted. Copies of the re-examination Master Plan
as received from Remington and Vernick will be
forwarded to the Board Members for their review. This will be placed on the agenda for
next month’s meeting. Ms.
Adamson will contact George Stevenson who prepared the Master Plan
Re-examination to arrange to come to the meeting to discuss the revisions.
There
being no further business, a motion was made by Leon Manchester, seconded by
James Scott to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at approximately
10:45 p.m.
These
minutes are an extract from the meeting that was held on the above date and are
not to be considered a verbatim account or to be construed as an official
transcript of the proceedings. The tape
of the meeting is stored in the Borough Hall.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alice
B. Williams,
Secretary
Land Use Board