Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Minor Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves minor subdivision and three variances to create 1‑acre exception within preserved farmland
Summary
The planning board approved a minor subdivision (PLN 26004) allowing a 1‑acre exception lot within a 2008 agricultural development easement, granting variances for lot area, frontage and rear-yard setback; approval is conditioned on satisfying staff and outside‑agency reports.
The Franklin Township Planning Board approved a minor-subdivision application from Sedam (transcribed as "Saddam") Associates (PLN 26004) that creates a one-acre exception lot within a parcel subject to a 2008 agricultural development easement.
Matt Flynn, attorney for the applicant, said the easement, recorded in 2008, included severable exception areas allowing limited future development. Michael Ford, an engineer with Van Clee Engineering Associates, testified that the proposal subdivides a severable exception area to create a single 1-acre lot for a future single-family dwelling and requested three bulk variances: a minimum lot area (1 acre proposed; 6 acres required in the AG zone), frontage (199 feet proposed; 400 feet required) and rear-yard setback (50 feet proposed; 200 feet required).
Ford said the exception area was contemplated during the original preservation agreement and that the proposed dwelling would comply with the A-zone visual intent because front-yard setbacks remain deep. He also noted a pending application with the Franklin Township Sewage Authority for sewer connection and said stormwater, soil testing and other construction details would be addressed at the building-permit stage. "We do have a pending application with the Franklin Township Sewage Authority for the connection," Ford stated.
Board members discussed whether a one-acre lot would visually appear different from the preserved farm and raised concerns that fences, pools or other vertical features could change the agricultural character. Some members said family continuity and preservation objectives supported the exception; others said the board should note potential perception changes if owners installed fences or other amenities. Flynn and Ford responded that many of those issues are governed by construction permitting and that the easement limits further subdivision beyond the carved exception areas.
A nearby resident, Dolores Christmas of Three Castle Court, said she received mailed notice and, after hearing the testimony, said she did not expect any impact on her property. "Based on what I'm hearing, it doesn't sound like it," she told the board after confirming the location of the subdivided area.
Chairman Orsini called for a motion to approve the application with the three variances, conditioned on the applicant satisfying staff and outside-agency reports. The motion passed on a roll call with recorded votes in favor from Councilman Embarson, Robert Lort, Mark Dancy, Jennifer Ragnau, Mahir Rafi, Charles Brown, Robert Thomas, Sammy Siobhan and Chairman Orsini.
The board's approval allows the applicant to perfect the subdivision, subject to outside-agency clearances and the normal building-permit process for technical items such as drainage and foundations.
