In June, the application was withdrawn.
In July, the application was complete, but a notice presented for the meeting was deemed to have a defect and so testimony presented was nullified.
In August, the applicant’s counsel requested a continuance, so the application was not on the planning board agenda that evening.
Now, at the Sept. 2 meeting of the borough’s planning board, it was time for the board to once again begin the hearing on the controversial application for the subdivision of 605 Warwick Road.
The room was packed with Haddonfield residents as they listened to arguments and presentations from Donald C. Cofsky, attorney for the applicant/developer Mark DeFeo, and Salvatore Siciliano, attorney for the neighbor residents who object to the subdivision.
Yet, after questioning and discussion that lasted more than three hours, nothing was resolved.
The controversy surrounding the application of 605 Warwick revolves around a developer who seeks to tear down a large stone mansion and subdivide the property into three lots for three homes to be built.
A proposed lot fronted by Warwick Road would measure nearly 14,000 square feet, a proposed lot fronted by Warwick Road and Gill Road would measure nearly 17,000 square feet, and a proposed lot fronted by Treaty Elm Lane would measure 19,000 square feet.
That plan has brought forth a multitude of objections from residents arguing the developer is looking to change Haddonfield, and take away from the character of the borough.
The application has also raised concerns about the teardown of existing buildings.
Many residents have made their opposition known with the “Say No to 605 Warwick Development” signs that have dotted lawns around Haddonfield throughout the summer.
Cofsky has argued that the developer isn’t looking for a fight, and the plans fit within the borough’s existing ordinances, so there’s no reason to deny the application.
With the controversial nature of the application, planning board chairperson John LaProcido said the evening’s proceedings would unfold as such.
First, Cofsky would present the applicant’s position, along with expert testimony, after which the board, residents and Siciliano would be allowed to question those who testified.
Afterward, the process would repeat, with Siciliano presenting the objectors’ position, along with expert testimony, after which the board, residents and Cofsky would be allowed to question those who testified.
Cofsky spent more than an hour questioning his first expert, Hector Baez, an engineer with Engineering and Land Planning Associates, about numerous details of plans Baez had created for the subdivision and the houses that could be built there.
The questions included stormwater management, front, back and side yard space issues, traffic studies, environmental impact, landscaping details, parking areas, dry well placement, soil borings and more.
“From an engineering point of view, if for some reason, the borough feels that what you submitted should be modified, changed or whatever, is there any engineering reason why a three lot subdivision here cannot be accomplished?” Cofsky asked.
“There are no reasons I can think of,” Baez responded.
When it came time for the board to question Baez, board members John Stokes and Doug McCollister asked him about the lack of a filed landscaping plan and lack of a plan from a certified landscape architect.
Borough commissioner and planning board member John Moscatelli said everything presented, while specific, was also simply conceptual.
“A lot of which you presented is very specific information, and shows what could be done, but you’re saying ‘we don’t know that we’re going to do to that,’ so all I can take from that is that, from a planning board standpoint, we are essentially going to have to condition our approval on what you’re presenting now.”
Once Baez was done testifying, the proceedings never reached the point where Siciliano could present his position and experts.
Although the meeting started at 7:30 p.m., it was about 11 p.m. when the board and residents were done questioning the applicant’s experts.
Siciliano said that given the hour and his belief that a whole slew of new information was presented, he was not prepared to move forward that evening.
“I have confirmed with my engineer, who has been at my side through the evening, and there’s been an overabundance of new information and…I think it would be disrespectful to the ladies and gentleman of the board to try and force through in the next 25 minutes,” Siciliano said.
LaProcido said the board would open the next meeting on Oct. 7 with the presentation of the objectors’ position and presentation of their first expert.
