By Frank Mustac, Special Writer
An hour-long debate, followed by what turned out to be an improper vote by the Pennington Borough Council, brought about an unexpected delay to the introduction of new land-use rules.
Council members seemingly approved the introduction of an ordinance containing the rule changes by a 3-2 vote at the April 6 meeting of the governing body. But the vote was invalid, because the ordinance involved land use and, as such, adoption required at least four “yes” votes from the six-member council, according to Borough Clerk Elizabeth Sterling.
Councilman Glen Griffiths was not present at the April 6 meeting.
The Borough Council will vote again to reintroduce the ordinance on May 4. However, possibly because of the long debate that took place, Council members want language in the ordinance clarified first.
The proposed ordinance, designated as “No. 2016-6,” is published on the Pennington Borough municipal website. Language in the document, in part, says that a site plan for a development now has to be provided to the borough Planning Board for review, even if only part of the site is in Pennington.
Pennington Borough leaders seem to want this particular rule change because of a recent application by the CVS Health corporation to build a pharmacy and store on the border of Pennington and Hopewell Township, at the site of the current Sunoco gas station at the corner of Route 31 and Ingleside Avenue. The address there is 105 Route 31 South.
The size of the site is 2.4 acres, with 2.25 acres located in Hopewell Township and only 0.15 acres in Pennington.
The debate over the proposed ordinance arose when resident Mark Blackwell told the Borough Council on April 6 that other sections of the document adversely affect him, as well as the vast majority of homeowners in Pennington. Mr. Blackwell is a member of the borough Planning Board.
“I looks like a tear-down ordinance to me,” said Mr. Blackwell, whose house is on North Main Street.
He explained that if a building on his property were to become severely damaged or destroyed by a storm or fire, the proposed ordinance, as he interprets it, would require him to seek a variance from the borough Planning Board before he could rebuild on the same footprint.
A variance would be required, he said, because all of the structures on his land are not in compliance with current zoning rules.
“It affects me because I’m 100-percent non-conforming,” Mr. Blackwell said. “Ninety percent of the homes in the borough are non-conforming uses.”
Obtaining a variance, he said, would require added expense beyond the cost of rebuilding.
“This is a burden for me,” said Mr. Blackwell.
His interpretation of the ordinance was supported by councilmen Joseph Lawver and Charles Marciante. Deborah Gnatt, James Davy and Catherine “Kit“ Chandler disagreed.
The proposed ordinance, Ms. Chandler said, only applies to “willful destruction” of non-conforming existing buildings.
“If an act of God occurs, you’re protected,” Ms. Chandler said.
At one point during the debate, Borough Administrator Eileen Heinzel suggested postponing the ordinance introduction so that language in the document could be modified.
However, Borough Attorney Walter Bliss suggested the council adopt the proposed ordinance that night “as is” and adjust the ordinance language prior a public hearing and adoption of the measure take place at an upcoming meeting.
“That’s the safe way,” Mr. Bliss said.
Only after Council voted, 3-2, to approve the ordinance introduction did Ms. Sterling realize the vote may have been improper.
During a short recess, state statutes were reviewed and the vote was determined to be invalid. Mr. Bliss recommended that any changes made to the ordinance language be reviewed by the Planning Board as well as the borough’s professional planner before it comes up for reintroduction on May 4.
“We want the language to be crystal clear,” Ms. Chandler said.
Mayor Anthony Persichilli at the April 6 meeting thanked Mr. Blackwell for his input.
“We appreciate your comments. You know that,” the mayor told him.
