Residents oppose flag lot
proposed for Buckelew
Property owner would like to subdivide 4.4-acre lot to build second home
By lynn K. Barra
Staff Writer

MONROE — A recent proposal by a Buckelew Avenue resident to build a second home on his property drew opposition from neighbors at last Thursday’s Planning Board meeting.

Gary Fleischhauer presented an application to build a mother/daughter, or two-family home on his existing property. He is seeking approval from the board to subdivide his 4.4-acre property and build a flag lot to accommodate the new construction.

"Everybody in that area has a lot of property, and potentially everybody on that street could apply for a flag lot subdivision," Buckelew Avenue resident Alison Lindner said.

Lindner, who was one of two Buckelew Avenue residents to voice concerns about the application, said she was surprised to find out about the application, which she said was the second such proposal on the street.

"Everybody was very opposed to it," Lindner said about a similar application presented to the board approximately 18 months ago by another Buckelew Avenue resident, who was denied permission at that time to build a flag lot.

"We got the word from everybody here on the Planning Board that there would not be anymore flag lots allowed in the area. We got the commitment and we got everybody’s word. I’m surprised that we’re here again, not that long after that commitment was made, listening to another flag lot being proposed."

"I personally did not make a statement that there would not be additional flag lots," Planning Board Chairman Cary Mintz said. "We cannot stop anyone from entertaining the idea of presenting an application to the Planning Board."

Mintz also addressed Lindner’s concerns about the possibility of a precedent being set that would allow other Buckelew Avenue residents to build flag lots should Fleischhauer’s application be approved.

"This application doesn’t set a precedent because one application happens to fit the area," Mintz said. "Just because this could possibly be passed does not set a precedent that future flag lots would be allowed, or the reverse."

Planning Board Attorney Jerome Convery discussed the definition of a flag lot to both the board and the handful of Buckelew Avenue residents in attendance before he commented on the application.

"A flag lot is a lot which may or may not front or abut a public or private road or where access to a public or private road is by a narrow, private, right-of-way easement or fee-simple ownership of a strip of land," Convery said.

"That would be the situation where someone is creating access or a right of way to a back lot," Convery said. "If I were asked by a court of law if I believed this to be a flag lot, my answer would be categorically, no.

"Very often people come forward, and they want to have frontage of 20 feet just to have a driveway going back (onto their property leading to another building)," Convery said. "This isn’t the typical flag lot which someone is creating in the back of his or her property."

Convery also pointed out that the applicant has enough available land to build an additional home on the back of his property and meet township requirements by doing so without seeking approval to build a flag lot. A homeowner is not required to build a flag lot if he or she has a minimum of 100 feet of land or frontage between a public road and the proposed new construction.

"In this case, the frontage for the two lots (that Fleischhauer wants to subdivide) is 89.5 square feet, where 100 square feet is required, and the other lot is 110.5 square feet, where 100 feet is required," Convery said, explaining the applicant’s plans to subdivide property next to his current home and build an additional home on one part of that subdivision.

A second Buckelew Avenue resident spoke about what she fears will have a detrimental effect on property values in the Buckelew Avenue area.

"This starts to pit neighbor against neighbor, and that’s not fair," Cindy Ziemba said. "Most people have between 3 and 6 acres. The same thing could take place (at other homes).

"What if the person next to (Fleischhauer) decides to do the same thing?" Ziemba asked the board. "And the neighbor next to that person decides to do the same thing, too? Then all you have is a nice little community. We bought in a developed area, not in a development. (Allowing flag lots) will jeopardize property values."

Fleischhauer was given the option to have his original application voted on at last week’s meeting or to upgrade the plans and come back another time. Had he agreed to a board vote that night, Fleischhauer was told that the board may have approved the flag-lot application for subject to a deed restriction on the property, which would effectively limit him to building the mother/daughter home and no other homes.

Despite the options offered to him by the board, Township Engineer Ernie Feist said that the applicant has the right to build one or more properties on his land if he can design construction plans that supersede the need to build flag lots.

"They (the residents) have no legitimate concerns," Feist said. "The applicant can get the 100-foot frontage with no deed restrictions. The board could vote no (at a future meeting), but it would be illegal. He’s entitled to it."