Hillsboro planning board approves two‑acre split from preserved Derling farm, limits tree removal to 0.8 acres

The Hillsboro Township Planning Board on Nov. 13 approved a minor subdivision that will carve a two‑acre residential exception from a roughly 44.667‑acre preserved farm on Willow Road, allowing family members to build a single‑family home while keeping most of the land in agricultural use.

Ryan Kennedy, an attorney with Stevens & Lee representing the applicants, opened the public hearing and said the application seeks to "sever" a two‑acre exception area that was set aside when the farm was permanently preserved in 2006. "Were here tonight to sever through subdivision that 2acre parcel to allow them actually to keep in the family the buildable lot," Kennedy said during his presentation.

Elizabeth Derling Sternacco, who identified herself as a descendant of the family that has owned the farm for generations, testified the property "has been in my family for over four generations" and said the family intends the remainder of the farm to remain in agricultural production. Her husband, Paul Sternato, also testified in support.

Michael Ford, a licensed professional engineer and planner with Van Clee Engineering, described the mapping and the minor‑subdivision plan. He said the two‑acre exception is a narrow, wooded, triangular area established under the 2006 agricultural easement and that the proposal seeks relief from standard AG‑zone bulk requirements: a 10‑acre minimum lot size, a 400‑foot minimum lot depth (the exception area measures about 197 feet), a 150‑foot front‑yard setback (about 75 feet proposed) and 75‑foot side‑yard setbacks (about 50 feet proposed).

Ford told the board the application will be filed as a minor subdivision by deed rather than as a final plat and that stormwater and septic design will be completed at the building‑permit stage. "We would add a note referencing the requirement to address stormwater management at the time of construction," he said, noting the proposed house and associated disturbance are expected to fall below state and township "major project" thresholds.

The application also required relief related to a stream corridor along the lot frontage. Ford said a nearby pond and the 150‑foot regulated stream buffer "just kisses and cuts across the frontage of this lot" and that the only practical driveway location requires a minimal crossing. He offered three options for the boards consideration: waive the requirement to record a complex conservation easement along the irregular frontage, allow an averaged/linear conservation easement of equivalent area, or map the irregular line and record the actual easement boundary.

A central point of debate was tree mitigation. Ford asked the board for a waiver from the townships tree‑mitigation plan submission requirement and relief from a 20% tree‑removal threshold in the ordinance, arguing the two‑acre exception was selected under the 2006 easement and the townships tree rules were adopted later. Ford estimated, without a formal tree count, that off‑site mitigation or an equivalent payment could be "in the ballpark of $50,000" depending on the size and number of trees affected.

Board planning and engineering staff recommended specific plan notes and supported an "averaging" approach for the stream corridor easement to simplify the conservation area while preserving the required acreage. Staff also noted that many technical plan comments could be reduced because the filing will be by deed rather than final plat, but they asked the applicant to provide monumentation or corner‑setting confirmation.

The applicant's planner, Paul Gletz, testified the proposal advances the townships master‑plan goals for agricultural preservation while reasonably allowing a single family dwelling within the previously established exception. He presented the C2 (flexible) variance proofs saying the positive public‑interest benefits of preserving the larger farm outweigh the limited bulk relief needed for the triangular exception area.

Board members questioned arithmetic in plan tables and asked for corrected acreage columns (the applicant agreed). Several members pressed the applicant on whether the waiver would permit wholesale clearing; Ford and counsel pointed to a conceptual limit of disturbance shown on the plans and recommended limits tied to building permits and erosion‑control filings.

As a condition of approval the applicant agreed to limit tree‑removal/disturbance associated with construction to no more than 0.8 acres; the board recorded on the record that the application must return to the board if that threshold is exceeded. Mr. Bernstein summarized the motion stating the approval would be "subject to all conditions approved on the record including all the reports submitted by the board professionals" and the 0.8‑acre return threshold.

The motion to approve the minor subdivision (Estate of Harriet E. Derling, file 25‑PB‑03‑SV; proposed lot 52.02, block 203.23) passed on a roll‑call vote with the members present voting yes. The board and applicants also agreed to correct plan tables and include stormwater and erosion‑control notes at the time of building permit review.

The board's action allows the Sternacco/Derling family to proceed with deeding the two‑acre lot for future residential use while preserving the remaining acreage under the existing agricultural easement. The board recorded the condition that the applicant return if tree disturbance exceeds 0.8 acres, and required final technical clarifications before plan stamping and deed recording.