By Geoffrey Wertime, Staff Writer
BORDENTOWN CITY — The Planning Board is working on formulating recommendations for the City Commission on a controversial zoning ordinance that has been the target of public ire.
Nearly 30 residents attended a special meeting April 23 when the board began going over recommendations made by the Citizens’ Advisory Committee on how the 343-page ordinance, two years in the making, could be reworked to address locals’ concerns.
Another meeting is scheduled for tonight, Wednesday night.
Almost a year ago, the nine-person CAC was appointed after hundreds of city residents showed up at a public forum where many decried the land use ordinance. While the commissioners directly addressed some of the concerns that were raised, they left the CAC to go over the document in detail and recommend changes, and the group turned in its report in February.
At last week’s meeting, the board addressed the CAC’s comments on the ordinance’s sections dealing with environmental consideration and design policies, waterfront development and child, elder and family care.
First, the Planning Board recommended the City Commission reword a part of the document to make it clear environmentally friendly building practices are encouraged, but not required.
The board also discussed tree removal; specifically, what residents should be able to do on their own property without first seeking the city’s permission. Current rules allow residential landowners to clear-cut their property, which the board frowned upon.
At the meeting, both the board and residents during public comment found themselves split between allowing citizens to do as they wish and keeping the city’s tree cover, which has both environmental and aesthetic benefits.
”It supercedes the idea of private ownership,” said Shade Tree Committee Chairman Al Barker.
Planning Board Attorney Peter Lange Jr. said that particular interpretation of the issue is too broad.
”It’s really a gross oversimplification of the issues and our society to say, ‘Hey, this is America, I should be able to do anything I want on my property,’” he said. “You have to try to build a consensus that works for your community.”
Ultimately, the board recommended to the commission the ordinance call for residents to seek a tree removal permit for any tree with a diameter of more than 10 inches, allowing for some exemptions such as tree disease. A violation would result in a fine of between $100 and the maximum allowed by state law, currently $1,500. Board member Steve McGowan was alone in voting against making the recommendation.
In waterfront development, the board unanimously voted to suggest changing which property uses would be allowed as primary uses, moving many to secondary or accessory uses and eliminating others. Uses the board recommended to eliminate in that zone include public utilities, wireless communication, home occupancy and hotels and motels.
During public comment on that section, several residents expressed worry and confusion about the current plan.
”I have a little concern that the people of Bordentown are not aware of your visions for the future of the waterfront,” said Crayle Green, of East Chestnut Street.
Planning Board Chairman Samuel Surtees said the board “went above and beyond what’s required by the state” to solicit residents’ input.
In response to other comments, he also noted the plan’s purpose is to look at “adaptive reuse” of the properties in the area and anticipate various possibilities of how the land could be used, not just what the yacht clubs there have planned.
Finally, the board reworked where child-, elder- and family-care businesses would be allowed to be in accordance with state law and unanimously sent that recommendation to the City Commission as well.
Some of the plan’s elements that upset residents already have been removed at the City Commission’s request, including allowing accessory apartments and bed and breakfasts; the addition of 100 dwelling units to the center of town; residential flats; raising the downtown height limit to 50 feet or four stories; and any references to the city as a “transit village.”

