Clark Township Planning Board continued a site-plan and two-lot minor subdivision application for Primavera Parkview LLC at 7 Aachen Drive (Block 21, Lot 17) on Sept. 4, 2025, after the board and members of the public raised unresolved easement, setback and engineering-review issues. The board set the continuation for Nov. 6, 2025, at 7:30 p.m., and the applicant consented; the board said no further public notice will be provided.

The applicant, Joseph Fonseca, a principal in Primavera, testified that the company proposes to create two lots from an existing 35,799-square-foot parcel and build two single-family homes “for sale.” Wayne Applegate, the surveyor of record from EKA Associates, testified that the plans (boundary/topographic survey dated 04/03/2025; minor-subdivision plan dated 05/29/2025) conform to the township’s R-150 zoning and that the ordinance-based average front-yard setback for the four adjacent lots computes to 62.7 feet; the proposed dwellings, Applegate said, conform to that average.

Why it matters: neighbors and the township reviewer flagged a shared driveway easement and potential removal of paving that could impede access to the adjacent garage. Richard O’Connor, the author of the planning-review letter dated Aug. 18, told the board that removing a portion of the paved driveway could violate the recorded easement: "taking out 10 feet of the driveway ... would be a violation of that easement agreement," he said. Neighbors said the proposed removal would prevent them from accessing their garage. Dave Borenstein, who lives at 9 Hacken Drive, told the board, “there is no way we could get up to our garage if they take out that part of the driveway.”

The applicant acknowledged he had not contacted the adjacent owner before the hearing and said he would respect the easement and pursue an alternative driveway layout. Fonseca said the construction plan will include erosion controls: "We will first put up silt fences along the property lines ... Also, an orange fence for any kind of debris that could blow over during construction," he testified. Applegate presented an alternate circular driveway option that would use part of the existing easement to avoid backing vehicles directly into the nearby intersection, and the applicant agreed to consider that design as a condition of approval.

The board’s written review and conditions include a number of required submittals and compliance items that the applicant either agreed to provide or said he would address before the continuation: copies of proposed deeds for each new lot, an application documenting pre- and post-development sanitary-sewer flows and any required sanitary-sewer flow rights, will-serve documentation from New Jersey American Water, notification to the township engineer to witness sanitary connections, a landscape plan to be approved by the shade-tree director and a tree-replacement application under township ordinance section 3-38, payment of a fee in lieu of constructing a concrete sidewalk along the property frontage if sidewalks do not exist, an estimate of construction costs to facilitate required performance and maintenance bonds, and posting of applicable review, inspector and escrow fees. The review noted the project is under a quarter-acre of new impervious area and under one acre of disturbance and therefore was not classified as a major development in that reviewer’s opinion.

Board members and staff repeatedly told the applicant the engineer listed on the plans, Joseph Bocce, was not present and that the applicant had not seen the Aug. 18 review letter until the day of the hearing; the absence of the engineer and outstanding items led multiple board members to recommend an adjournment so the applicant could present a fuller submission. The applicant consented and the board scheduled the continuation for Nov. 6, 2025, at 7:30 p.m. The board secretary stated, "No further notice of this application will be provided. This is the only notice that will be provided to the public."

Discussion versus decision: the meeting record shows discussion and testimony regarding survey calculations, driveway-easement boundaries, proposed driveway alternatives, erosion-control and landscaping plans, and required submissions, but no final approval or vote on the subdivision was taken. The only formal outcome recorded on the application was the mutual consent to continue the hearing to Nov. 6, 2025.

What comes next: the applicant must respond to the Aug. 18 review, coordinate with the adjacent property owner on the shared driveway easement or present an alternative driveway design that preserves access, provide the technical submittals listed by the reviewer (deeds, sewer flows, will-serve, bonds, landscape/tree plan), and return to the board on Nov. 6 for further hearing and potential action.