Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cherry Hill Township Planning Board denies minor subdivision at 309 Oak Avenue
Summary
On May 18, 2026 the Cherry Hill Township Planning Board voted 8-0 to deny a minor subdivision at 309 Oak Avenue that would have created a flag lot requiring a frontage variance; the board cited neighborhood uniformity and substandard-lot concerns and noted an NJDEP LOI was still pending.
The Cherry Hill Township Planning Board denied a minor subdivision application for 309 Oak Avenue (25-P-0033) at its May 18, 2026 meeting, voting 8-0 to reject a proposal to split a vacated single-family lot into two lots after hearing testimony from the applicant and concerns from a nearby resident.
The proposal, presented by applicant James Foley and his attorney Matthew McCrink, would divide the parcel into Lot 6A (a front lot conforming to bulk standards) and Lot 6B, a flag lot that requires a variance from §405.D to permit 20 feet of street frontage where 80 feet is required. Project engineer Brian Peterman said the configuration was intended to avoid creating two nonconforming 50-foot frontages and that the applicant will seek a Letter of Interpretation (LOI) from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; the LOI and any required wetlands delineation were identified as conditions of approval by the professionals.
Board members and staff discussed technical aspects of the proposal, including a driveway adjustment required by §505.C.3 (removal of existing driveway within 3 feet of the property line on each side), stormwater and tree-ordinance compliance, and the applicant’s request for a sidewalk waiver on Oak Avenue because no sidewalk exists within 100 feet of the property. Planning Board Engineer Stacey Arcari told the board that the applicant had addressed her comments in the review letter.
During public comment, Martha Wright of 200 Munn Lane urged denial, saying the R2 zone is intended for moderate-size single-family lots and that a flag-lot subdivision would disrupt neighborhood uniformity, impede emergency access, and create safety issues. The applicant argued the development would improve the prior condition and that the positive criteria under the Municipal Land Use Law outweigh any negatives, but several board members voiced concerns that the negative criteria prevailed.
Solicitor James W. Burns reminded the board that financial feasibility is not a permissible basis for the board’s relief decisions. After deliberation, Planning Board member Marlyn Kalitan moved to deny the minor subdivision; the motion, seconded by Earle Seneres, passed unanimously. The minutes record the result: "The application is denied by a vote of eight (8) in favor of denial and zero (0) opposed." The board recorded no resolutions related to the application and adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
The decision denies the applicant’s request for subdivision and associated frontage relief; any future development would require either a revised application or other means to address the frontage nonconformity and the pending NJDEP LOI requirement.
