CLAYTON PLANNING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

january 18, 2012 (reorganization)

The regular meeting of the Clayton Planning Board was called to order at 7:30 PM. Invocation was given and we had a Salute to the Flag.

New Members, Steven Gavarone, Ron Sachs, Dr. Michele Turner-Wood, Melissa Fox, Darlene Vondran and previous members, David Schoellkopf and William McNulty, were sworn in by the Solicitor, John Alice.

Sunshine law

The public notice of this meeting pursuant to the Open Public Meeting Act of 1975 has been properly given in the following manner:

A.  Posting written notice on the Official Bulletin Board in the Municipal Building.

B.  Mailing written notice to the Gloucester County Times and the Franklinville Sentinel.

C.  Filing written notices with the Clerk of the Borough of Clayton.

ROLL CALL

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

Absent: None

ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD CHAIRPERSON

M/ Bianco, S/ Abate motioned to appoint David Schoellkopf as Planning Board Chairperson.

ROLL CALL

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD SOLICITOR

M/ Bianco, S/ Vondran motioned to appoint John Alice, Esquire as Planning Board Solicitor

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD SECRETARY

M/ Bianco, S/ McNulty motioned to appoint Debbie Schlosser as Planning Board Secretary

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER

M/ Bianco, S/ Vondran motioned to appoint Sickels & Associates as Planning Board Engineer

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD PLANNER

M/ Bianco, S/ Vondran motioned to appoint Remington & Vernick as Planning Board Planner

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

ROLL CALL

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD VICE CHAIR

M/ Bianco, S/McNulty motioned to appoint Joe Abate as Planning Board Vice Chair

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

ROLL CALL

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD NEWSPAPER

M/ Vondran, S/ Zorzi motioned to appoint The Gloucester County Times and The Franklinville Sentinel

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE 2012 PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATES AND TIMES

M/ Bianco, S/ Vondran motioned to appoint the dates listed in the packets

Ayes: Abate, Bianco, Gavarone, McNulty, Sachs, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Vondran, Zorzi

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

M/ McNulty, S/ Abate - Approve the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Clayton Planning Board/Zoning Board held on December 21, 2011.

ROLL CALL

Ayes: Abate, McNulty, Schoellkopf, Scholz, Zorzi

Abstain: Bianco, Gavarone, Sachs, Vondran

OLD BUSINESS:

None.

NEW BUSINESS:

Center for Family Services – Block 1903, Lots 2 & 2.01

Jeffrey Daniels, Esquire spoke on behalf of his client. Charles Ansert, Henry Haley, P.E., and Tiffany Cuviello, P.P. John Alice, Solicitor, swore in all parties. Darlene Vondran and Tom Bianco both stepped down because the application is for a use variance.

Mr. Daniels advised the board that they are seeking use variance and site plan approval at property located at the above. It is currently an outpatient center and they are looking to convert it to a group home.

John Alice, Solicitor, swore in both George Stevenson, P.P. and Steven Weber, P.E.

Mr. Ansert spoke about the center. He indicated that they have owned and operated this particular facility for many, many years. They have had no complaints from surrounding property owners. It is a one story structure and they are not proposing any additions or deletions to the structure. No alterations will be made.

They currently run an after school program and they have two (2) employees. They pick the children up after school and stay with them until approximately 7 or 8 p.m. They are proposing to make this a group home. The law provides up to 12 children if permitted by the State of New Jersey to reside there. The State of New Jersey did come out and look at their facility and approximately eight (8) children will be residing there. These children are abused and neglected and many of them are in the DYFS program. They stay under their care in this facility on average about 9 or 10 months. The ultimate goal is for family unification and to get these children back into a safe environment with their families.

There will be two (2) staff members in the house with the children at all times. Occasionally, there is a manager and an outside professional (i.e., counselor, psychiatrist, or psychologist) that comes there. There wouldn’t be more than six (6) employees there at one (1) time. None of the children are allowed to have automobiles.


Mr. Ansert advised the sub-committee, that they were asked to talk to their neighbor. They did speak with the neighbor and they are possibly going to purchase the property. A Letter of Intent to Purchase dated January 12, 2012 was marked as Exhibit “A-1”. Brief discussion took place.

This is a good location for the children and a right fit as it is a single family house and it’s a family setting. Mark Zorzi asked how many children were there now and they advised 12 to 15 kids that are in their early teens. They are not driving age. They have vans and they transport the kids. The purchase of the new home is not going to be used as a group home. They may use some of it as office space. They property that they currently use has municipal water and a septic system. The back property is just well and septic.

Joe Abate asked that if both male and female children are going to be residing there are they going to have both male and female staff working there. He advised it depends on what gender of kids are there. If they are all male, they will have male staff. If they are all female, they will have female staff. The applicant will comply with the State or Federal Law as to how many children will reside at the group home. The State allows 12 but they will probably have eight (8).

Joe Abate asked about the kids being there in the summer time. They still care for them all day and they have activities they participate in. Steve Gavarone asked what the ages of the children will be in the group home and they answered 13-17 years old. He also asked about curfews, etc… Mr. Ansert indicated that the State of NJ has policies and procedures that are voluminous. That’s why there are two (2) full time workers there 24 hours a day.

Joe asked what improvements they are going to do to the current structure and also to the grounds? They are looking to improve the fire suppression as it will be mandated by the State. The property already has potable water and they have reached out to the water department and they already have a copy of the plans to see how we can facilitate fire suppression out there. They are looking to add a security system with cameras so we can make sure everyone is safe at all times. They currently have exterior lights on the outside of the building and an alarm.

Jeff Scholz asked if there will be any office/administrative functions on the property. Mr. Ansert indicated that there is already existing spaces with the way it is laid out. There are offices where staff can meet with the students in a one on one setting and there are also spaces where administrative paperwork can be done. There is also space for group sessions. Some clerical work is done there. The visiting professionals that come there only interact with the children there. They do not see outside patients. Mr. Ansert was asked if there will be any special needs children there? He said that they already have a ramp and the hallways and the bathrooms already accommodate that. After they make application here they have to apply with the construction department which is required by the State. Someone will have to come out and re-inspect it.

The Clerk of Glassboro along with the residents within 200 feet of this property were noticed since they are right on the border of Clayton and Glassboro.

They feel this is a great environment for the kids. It is quiet for them. The children are schooled by their own school district and are taken to and from by them. They may decide to make a big TV room or computer lab in the basement but the kids will not be sleeping in the basement. They were asked if the kids are involved in any extra-curricular activities. Mr. Ansert indicated yes and that they take them to any extracurricular activities that they might be involved in whether it be cheerleading or football.


Ms. Fox asked what some of the challenges are. He answered that the challenge is that they think is the key is communication. The kids will eventually cycle through and go back to their families.

Tiffany Cuviello, P.P. spoke on behalf of the applicant and about the SICA test which is a balancing test. The court determined a four (4) prong test for them to use. The first is to identify the compelling public interest. How beneficial and important is this use. The second is to identify potential impact from the use at the site. The third is to determine if there are any reasonable conditions you can place on that use to mitigate the potential impact. And the fourth is to balance the compelling public interest against the impact from those reasonable conditions. The compelling public interest is to provide housing for children in need. These are children that are in a situation that need to be removed from their homes and have a place to stay with a structured environment. Unfortunately, in today’s world there is a huge demand for this type of housing for children in this situation. The goal of Center for Family Services is to reintegrate those children back to their families. The compelling public interest here is to provide a service for those children when there is no one else really to provide it.

Ms. Cuviello then spoke about the potential impact on this use. They currently have a parking lot with 26 spaces. This operation provides counseling services. They are looking to restructure how this is handled and have children living here overnight. The number of staff at the most will be six (6). With 26 spaces there is more than enough room. In addition, they have two (2) vans so that will take up eight (8) parking spaces. This still leaves room for any additional visitors that come to the site. Right now the parking lot is being utilized more and there are cars parked on the lot. The proposed use would have less of an impact in terms of traffic and parking than the existing use does.

Ms. Cuviello spoke briefly about the concerns for buffering in regards to the existing single family dwelling. That impact has basically been eliminated as the applicant has an intent to purchase the property. They believe there is no substantial detriment to the public good. The impacts from this use are much less than the impacts would be from a permitted use and similar to if not less than the impact from the existing use that is on the property. They believe that because of these factors the use variance can be granted tonight.

David Schoellkopf indicated that the board is evaluating this that the property they are intending to purchase next to them is a done deal. If the deal falls through, they will have to reserve the right to re-evaluate your buffer zones. John Alice, Solicitor, added that you have this use variance approval contingent upon and subject to the acquisition of the other property. John said it will solve that and if the deal falls through they will have to come back before the board.

Jeff Scholz asked if they could require them to comply with the buffer if the deal falls through then it will not be necessary for them to come back before the board. Jeff Daniels, Esquire proposed that if the deal falls through that they will agree to put up the fence for the buffering and they will meet with the professionals and come to some kind of agreement. They will also come to some kind of agreement with the neighbor also. The board agreed. The board did not have any questions for Tiffany Cuviello.

Henry Hale did not have anything to add.

MOTION TO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:

M/Abate, S/ McNulty

MOTION TO CLOSE TO THE PUBLIC:

M/ Abate, S/ McNulty

Steve Weber of Sickels & Associates referenced his letter dated December 19, 2011. This application is a use variance which generally we do not get involved in. They will defer to George Stevenson regarding the landscaping and buffering. They are requesting that the applicant provide and show the striping in the parking lot on the plan.

They are recommending that the applicant contact the Board of Health regarding the changes to the septic system. Also, they are requesting that they contact the Public Works Department regarding the fire suppression system. David asked if there are any drainage issues. Steve responded no he didn’t believe so as he hasn’t heard about anything on the East side of the street.

Mr. Daniels advised the board that the applicant agrees to address the comments in the review letters.

George Stevenson, P.P. of Remington & Vernick referenced his letter dated December 12, 2011. He indicated that every comment in his letter has already been touched upon except for just one. He believes that the applicant’s planner has provided an adequate testimony in regards to the SICA test.