The issue lives to be fought over another day.
That was the result of the latest Haddonfield Planning Board meeting on Nov. 13 regarding the ongoing, often contentious, application to subdivide the property located at 605 Warwick Road.
Once again, testimony and comments from the applicant, opponents and borough officials ran over the allotted four-hour time limit of the meeting, and so, once again, any possible resolution to the issue will be pushed to the next meeting at the earliest.
The debate dates back to the summer and surrounds applicant/developer Mark DeFeo and the request to subdivide the 605 Warwick Road property, demolish the existing house and build three new homes at the site.
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 proposal has brought forth objections from those neighboring the property and residents who feel the subdivision and proposed homes would take away from the character of the neighborhood and Haddonfield as a whole.
Several of those residents have made their objections known with “Say No to 605 Warwick Development” signs on lawns around Haddonfield as debate surrounding the issue has dragged on.
The Warwick discussion at the Nov. 13 meeting opened with opponents of the request, this time neighbors and residents, giving comments and testimony, including concerns about storm water runoff, vegetation screening and safety concerns over the driveway of the proposed home fronted by Treaty Elm Lane being too close to the curved intersection of Gill Road.
In September, the attorney for the applicant, Donald C. Cofsky, was able to present experts, and at the following meeting in October, the attorney for those objecting to the application, Salvatore Siciliano, was able to start presenting his experts.
Soon the discussion turned to a recent report from the Shade Tree Commission, which hadn’t had time to look at landscaping plans for the property for the October meeting.
Cofsky had no real objections to the recommendations listed in the report and also presented his belief that objections raised at the October meeting regarding the garages and driveways at the proposed homes met the state requirement for the number of parking spaces needed.
Cofsky, and later the township engineer, said the residential site improvement standards under the state Department of Community Affairs would supersede the borough regarding that issue.
The meeting ended with the township engineer giving his report to the board and board members publically submitting their questions that would have to be answered at the next meeting due to time constraints.
