EAST AMWELL
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT - MINUTES
Municipal Building - 7:30
PM
May 8, 2007
Call to order and
compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act
The regular meeting of the
Board of Adjustment was called to order at 7:30 PM on May 8, 2007 in the Main
Meeting Room of the Municipal Building, 1070 Route 202/31, Ringoes, NJ by
Chairman, Pete Kneski.
In compliance with the Open
Public Meetings Act, the Administrative Officer announced this was a regularly
scheduled meeting pursuant to the Meeting Notice as published in the January
18, 2007 issue of the Hunterdon County Democrat, filed in the Township Clerk’s
Office and posted on the bulletin board on May 2, 2007.
Roll Call and Agenda
Review
Present: Nancy
Cunningham
Paul
Gavzy
Kathi
Hoffman
Pete
Kneski
Freda
Routh
Sue
Posselt (Alt. 1)
Sherrie
Binder (Alt. 2)
Absent: Gloria
Frederick
Gael
Gardner
Chairman Kneski noted that
since two regular Board members were absent, both alternate Board members will
be eligible to vote. Additionally, he noted the addendum to the agenda which
includes approval of the Engel Resolution, extending the time they have to
secure a building permit.
A motion by Nancy Cunningham,
seconded by Paul Gavzy to approve the open session minutes from April 10, 2007
was approved with Kathi Hoffman and Freda Routh abstaining.
A motion by Paul Gavzy,
seconded by Nancy Cunningham to approve the closed session minutes from April
10, 2007 was approved with Kathi Hoffman and Freda Routh abstaining.
A motion by Nancy Cunningham,
seconded by Paul Gavzy to approve the following list of bills for payment was
unanimously approved:
A.
Maria Andrews - Secretarial & Administrative
1. April 2 - 8, 2007 (14.5 Hours @ $16.85) $244.33
2. April 9 - 15, 2007 (17 Hours @ $16.85) $286.45
3. April 16 - 22, 2007 (15.25 Hours @ $16.85) $256.96
B.
Trishka Waterbury, Esq.
1. Professional services to the BOA - March 2007 $217.00
2. Legal services to L&P Builders v. BOA - March
2007 $2510.50
3. Professional services to Cortelyou - March 2007 $108.50
4. Professional services to Maier - March 2007 $46.50
5. Professional services to Stabler - March 2007 $279.00
C.
Banisch Associates, Inc.
1. Professional services to the BOA - Jan. 2007 $42.60
2. Professional services to Joshua Properties - Jan.
2007 $619.00
D.
Hopewell Valley Engineering
1. Professional services to Princeton Hydro - March
2007 $161.75
2. Professional services to Perehinys - March 2007 $73.00
3. Professional services to Joshua Properties - March
2007 $219.00
4. Professional services to Cortelyou - March 2007 $73.00
5. Professional services to Scott - March 2007 $161.75
Chairman Kneski noted that
the correspondence will be dealt with as it comes up over the course of the
meeting.
There were no applications to
be deemed complete.
Applications for Public
Hearing
Ms. Andrews noted that the
Stabler application had been withdrawn on April 26, 2007.
Bruce Cortelyou - AJ-07-02
- Block 38 Lot 28.01 - 178 Lindbergh
Road, Hopewell, NJ
Attorney Waterbury reminded
the Board that Mr. Cortelyou was sworn in previously at the last meeting and
remains under oath. Chairman Kneski commented that at the last meeting the
Board had raised some issues and made some suggestions. Mr. Cortelyou explained
there was a request for the garage to be shifted away from the side yard and
moved closer to the front of the property. Mr. Cortelyou explained they moved
it, creating a 26' side yard setback and noted that it was also moved forward
1'. The existing shed will be relocated to the other side of the property,
decreasing a portion of the driveway space and eliminating the need for an
impervious coverage variance.
Ms. Routh questioned the
height of the proposed garage structure. Mr. Cortelyou explained that the
height will be 20' to the ridge line which will comply with the Ordinance.
Ms. Cunningham asked if the
recent changes to the Sourland Mountain Ordinance effect the changes made to
Mr. Cortelyou’s current application. Attorney Waterbury responded, “Except for
impervious cover–there is no impervious coverage variance needed because he is
within the limitations.”
A motion by Paul Gavzy,
seconded by Nancy Cunningham to open to the public was unanimously approved. No
one came forward. A motion by Paul Gavzy, seconded by Nancy Cunningham to close
to the public was unanimously approved.
A motion by Paul Gavzy,
seconded by Sherrie Binder to approve the application was unanimously approved.
Freda Routh commented that she did listen to the tape for this application, but
she wasn’t expecting the hearing this evening so she didn’t feel prepared to
ask any questions or make any comments and therefore didn’t want to vote on it.
Roll Call Vote: Paul Gavzy: Yes, Sherrie Binder: Yes, Nancy
Cunningham: Yes, Pete Kneski: Yes, Sue Posselt: Yes.
Since the next application
required the presence of Board Planner Frank Banisch, and he hadn’t gotten to
the meeting yet, the Board moved on to other agenda items.
New Business
A motion by Nancy Cunningham,
seconded by Paul Gavzy to approve the Scott Resolution was approved.
Roll Call Vote: Paul Gavzy: Yes, Nancy Cunningham: Yes, Pete Kneski:
Yes, Sue Posselt: Yes, Sherrie Binder: Yes.
A motion by Paul Gavzy,
seconded by Nancy Cunningham to approve the Engel Resolution, extending the
time in which they have to secure a building permit, was approved.
Roll Call Vote: Paul Gavzy: Yes, Nancy Cunningham: Yes, Kathi
Hoffman: Yes, Pete Kneski: Yes, Freda Routh: Yes, Sue Posselt: Yes, Sherrie
Binder: Yes.
Old Business
The Board approved the Zoning
Board Administrative Officer job description to include the comments of
Township Administrator Tim Matheny.
The Board took a five minute
break from 8:06 PM - 8:11 PM.
Applications for Public
Hearing, cont.
Princeton Hydro, LLC -
AJ-07-04 - Block 11 Lot 37.03 - 95 John
Ringo Road, Ringoes, NJ
Present for this application
was Attorney Erica Edwards, Company Owner Dr. Stephen Souza, Engineer Mary Pace
Goldman and Planner Elizabeth McKenzie. Attorney Waterbury swore everyone in,
including the Board’s professionals Engineer Dennis O’Neal and Planner Frank
Banisch. Attorney Edwards began explaining that the application is for Block 11
Lots 37 & 37.03 in the Amwell Valley Agricultural Zone. She stated that the
buildings on the lots are currently vacant and questioned whether or not a
“use” variance was necessary since what her client is proposing is not
inconsistent with prior uses on the property.
Dr. Souza explained that he
is a water research scientist. He said he dealt with clean environment type
water related issues. Primarily the restoration, maintenance and management of
streams, lakes, ponds, rivers, wetland resources, flood plains etc. Dr. Souza
spent some time elaborating on his credentials and some of the special projects
his company has done.
Princeton Hydro was formed on
May 15, 1998 with 6 staff members. Currently there are 34 staff members in 3
offices. One office is in Voorhees, New Jersey; one is in Exton, Pennsylvania
and the main office is here in Ringoes, New Jersey. The company began in
Lambertville and quickly outgrew the work space. Dr. Souza has lived in East
Amwell since 1981 and when the office space at the Point became available, the
company relocated. Princeton Hydro occupies about 6000 sq. ft. of that building
and now they require more space.
The proposed application is
for Princeton Hydro to move their “field operations” portion of the business to
the 95 John Ringo Road (B:11 L:37) location. Dr. Souza said that part of the
field operations equipment are 3 boats that are currently being stored off
site. He commented that it would be more practical and efficient if they had
their equipment centrally located. This property would allow them to accomplish
that. The following exhibits were offered throughout the testimony presented by
the applicant and each of his professionals:
Exhibit A-1: A reprint of an article from a
magazine giving an overview of a project Princeton Hydro did.
Exhibit A-2: A reprint of an article from
Landscape Architecture Magazine
Exhibit A-3: A reprint of an article from Land
and Water Magazine
Exhibit A-4: A photo of the Princeton Hydro sign
Exhibit A-5: A photo of the Princeton Hydro
business door and sign
Exhibit A-6: A photo of the building on B:11 L:37
that Princeton Hydro is proposing to rent
Exhibit A-7: A photo of the front and side of the
building on B:11 L:37 that Princeton Hydro is proposing to rent
Exhibit A-8: A photo of the parking lot side of
the building on B:11 L:37 that Princeton Hydro is proposing to rent
Exhibit A-9: A photo of the side and rear of the
building on B:11 L:37 that Princeton Hydro is proposing to rent
Exhibit A-10: A photo of the rear of the building
on B:11 Lot:37 that Princeton Hydro is proposing to rent
Exhibit A-11: An enlarged photo of the Princeton
Hydro business door and sign
Exhibit A-12: A photo of the rear and side of the
building on B:11 L:37 that Princeton Hydro is proposing to rent
Exhibit A-13: A photo of the “field” side of the
building on B:11 L:37 that Princeton Hydro is proposing to rent
Exhibit A-14: A photo of the “field” side and
front of the building on B:11 Lot:37 the Princeton Hydro is proposing to rent
Exhibit A-15: Another photo of the “field” side
and front of the building on B:11 Lot:37 that Princeton Hydro is proposing to
rent
Exhibit A-16: A mounted survey of the property
provided by the Scibilia’s (current property owners)
Exhibit A-17: A mounted map showing the structures
on the property
Dr. Souza explained that
often part of their projects require the planting of vegetation. Reference was
made to a current project that will require 3000 plantings around a half acre
pond. Dr. Souza said he presently buys the plants from a nursery, but the fact
that the property he is proposing to rent contains greenhouses would allow for
the possibility of growing his own plants. This point led into the discussion
of whether or not a use variance was needed since the previous business on the
property was a landscaping business with a retail florist.
The Board took a recess from
9:12 PM - 9:24 PM to allow Attorney Waterbury a few minutes to review the prior
Board Resolutions that directly related to this application: AJ–02-05 which was
the subject of the Landscaping business on this property and AJ–03-03 which was
the subject of storage on property in the Amwell Valley.
Attorney Waterbury explained,
“There are two Resolutions...one is AJ-02-05, this Resolution addresses the
question of the prior use of the property...what it appears to be is a
Resolution in an application that was made in 2002 by Scibilia for an
interpretation as to whether a landscaping aspect of the operation on the
property was permitted under the zoning ordinance as a permitted use in the
AVAD and the Zoning Board found that it wasn’t. If you look at the bottom of
page 2...the Board found that the applicant failed to establish proof that the
landscaping use was allowed in the AVAD...so in terms of what was previously
there, I think this is the nonconformity that I had understood previously
existed. The other one is AJ-03-03, that’s the application that was brought
before you by John Kanach...he was specifically applying for a D-1 use variance
to use some of his barns for storage of various things. One was swing sets
owned by Toy Kingdom, another barn he wanted to use for storing some excavation
equipment for a private individual and then he wanted to use a large outdoor
area for long term storage of boats or trailers.” Attorney Waterbury addressed
the Board saying, “Understand that there is that precedent when you decide
tonight whether the proposed use requires a use variance.”
The consensus of the Board was
that the main part of this application was the office/storage use with the
possible growing of plants being a secondary thought. Therefore the applicant
would need to proceed with his request for a use variance, which was what the
application was noticed for.
Attorney Edwards called their
Engineer Mary Pace Goldman to testify to the site layout. Ms. Goldman referred
to Exhibit A-16: A mounted survey of the property. She specifically referenced
the fact that the store on the property straddles the property line between lot
37 and 37.03. She clarified that Princeton Hydro would only be using the
building and the parking lot area. Ms. Goldman then referred to Exhibit A-17: A
mounted map showing the structures on the property and noted that they will not
be using the barns on the property, but commented that the greenhouses are
structures for potential use in the future.
Attorney Waterbury asked if
the maps being shown are “existing” conditions on the property. Ms. Goldman
replied that the maps were indicating the proposed lot line changes so that the
main building would not be straddling the property lines. Ms. Goldman stated
the map also shows the approximate location of the existing well which services
the main building and the greenhouses, and the approximate location of the
existing septic which does straddle the property lines between lots 37 and
37.03.
Ms. Routh questioned the
parking. Planner Banisch noted that the parking area straddles the lots as
well. Engineer O’Neal stated an access easement would be required.
Ms. Cunningham asked for
clarification on who was proposing the lot line changes. Attorney Waterbury
replied, “My understanding from speaking with Dick Dieterly, Esq., ...according
to him, this was an adjustment that the Township proposed to address the fact
that the main building straddles that boundary line. The fact that the building
is straddling the boundary line is creating problems in terms of transferring
the development rights to the County. The County did not want to accept them with
part of a building on Preserved Farmland–the use of which was inconsistent with
the deed restrictions, so one proposal was to draw an exception area around the
piece of the building that’s on lot 37, according to Dick Dieterly, Scibilia
did not go for that suggestion, the other suggestion was then to change the
boundary line so that the entire main building is then on lot 37.03 and
according to Dick Dieterly that was acceptable but it has just never gone
anywhere.”
Ms. Hoffman noted that Andrea
Bonette was in the audience and suggested that she may have some knowledge
regarding the application since she was on the Township Committee and has been
involved in Farmland Preservation. Attorney Edwards noted that Dena Scibilia,
the property owner, was also in the audience and suggested that the Board hear
from her first. Attorney Edwards asked Attorney Waterbury for clarification
that she was not implying in any way that the fact that the property line issue
remains unresolved is in any way the fault of the applicant or the owner.
Attorney Waterbury said, “No, I’m just relaying information that it remains
unresolved...I have no opinion whatsoever on why.”
Mrs. Dena Scibilia came
forward and was sworn in. Through a series of questions by Attorney Edwards,
her testimony was as follows: She and her husband have owned the property for
23 years. Two empty lots existed when they purchased the property at 95 John
Ringo Road. Mrs. Scibilia noted they built their house and the farmstand on the
lots and at the time, they were unaware the farmstand was being built on the
property line. Mrs. Scibilia stated that after a portion of the land was
preserved, the surveyor discovered that there was a problem with the lot lines.
Attorney Edwards asked if it would be fair to say that they have been
cooperative with the various authorities that have been attempting to resolve
this property line situation since it was discovered. Mrs. Scibilia replied,
“Absolutely. We have cooperated fully...we don’t even know what is going on. We
have done whatever they have asked us to do, and we’ve responded to whatever
they asked us to do.”
Ms. Hoffman asked if there
was ever any discussion on moving the farmstand over. Mrs. Scibilia said,
“There is quite an expense to do that. I don’t recall any discussion with
moving the building, but for us, monetarily and economically it is not
feasible.”
Ms. Cunningham asked if Mrs.
Scibilia knew what the current status of the lot line change is. Mrs. Scibilia
stated, “We responded to Dick Dieterly...with respect to the lot line that we
would approve...and I haven’t heard a word.”
Planner Banisch asked
Attorney Edwards if the lot lines are changed based on the proposed maps being
presented tonight, would there be any effect on the Farmland Preservation. Attorney
Edwards stated that she was not familiar with all of the details of the issue
but noted that everyone wanted to see the matter resolved.
Planner Banisch clarified
that rectifying the lot lines could be a condition of approval. Attorney
Edwards asked that Princeton Hydro be allowed to move into the property while
the lot line issues were being resolved. She commented that she didn’t want her
client to be held up by an “administrative snafu.”
Chairman Kneski asked if any
permits were going to be required based on what Dr. Souza is proposing. Dr.
Souza replied, “From what I understand, we could move in right now and do
nothing at all. If anything, there would be changes to the interior of the
building...the floor plan would not change at all.
Through Dr. Souza’s
testimony, it was stated that the proposed hours of operation would be 8:30 AM
- 5:30 PM, Monday - Friday. The business would not be open on nights or
weekends and there would only be about 2 people there everyday with up to 6
staff members in the summer–4 of which may be summer interns.
Ms. Routh noted
correspondence from the Board of Health in which the Board states if there is
an expansion or change of use for the property, the septic system must meet
current State and local codes and a certified well must be on the property. Dr.
Souza replied, “With all due respect to the Board of Health, they’re absolutely
wrong in their assessment. I have the septic code. I am familiar with the
septic code, and they’re not correct in their interpretation.”
Andrea Bonette was asked if
she had anything to add to the testimony. Ms. Bonette came forward and was
sworn in. She stated, “As a 30 year resident of the Township and currently the
Chair of our Stormwater Committee I would like to say that from a resident’s
view point the desirability of Princeton Hydro using this facility in the way
they proposed, I think would be a tremendous value to this community...so it
kind of breaks my heart to come and have to raise some issues here...I was not
prepared to testify in detail about the current status of discussions with the
Scibilia’s...and I did write you a letter...Dear Pete and Board Members: In
1999 East Amwell Township in an effort to speed up the drawn out process of
Farmland Preservation (and that’s a whole story in itself–that a lot of
residents and land owners were not willing to preserve their farms because of
the lengthy process and negotiating with the State and the County and taking
years and years to get reimbursement) so we fronted the entire payment for
development rights on the Scibilia property (and also parenthetically, on
other properties). Since then our reimbursement by the County and State has
taken 8 years and counting because there have been major problems with the lot
line between the preserved and unpreserved parcels. The problem is, that I
can know from this discussion that everyone on this Board is not familiar with
the history of this and they’re terribly complicated because they involve the
Board of Health, the State Ag Development Board and our own Open Space
Committee, so one thing I wish you would do, is not make any decisions tonight
if you’re going to consider that aspect until you speak to the Open Space
Committee...because it’s terribly important and I have to say that I respectfully
have to differ with Mrs. Scibilia. I’m sure she sincerely believes that they
have done everything they can to help this problem, but my understanding...is
that the Scibilia’s, I think could have done considerably more in a
considerably quicker fashion to resolve these issues. So to go back to my
letter– because we had hoped for Mr. Scibilia’s assistance in straightening
out this problem, the Township was not quite as assertive as some people
thought it should have been in citing several of the commercial uses of the
property after the Scibilia nursery operation shut down. (And I’d rather not
get into too much detail about that, but maybe you could read between the
lines.) The original amount that we paid out in 1999 for the development
rights was $220,280.00 of which we anticipated reimbursement of $191,280.00
Because of the long delay, we have never been able to get the State and the
County to sign off on it, and therefore the Township has not had the use of
that money for new preservation efforts. Furthermore, we have been paying
interest all of those years on a series of bonds (please see the attached
chart which is not created by me. It was created by Jane Luhrs for Judy
Conard.) In the amount of 42,735, about 80% of which would (we hope) be
reimbursed upon closing. Those are the facts, and those are easily
verifiable. Now, and this is just my opinion, which I put in this letter–
now there is yet another proposal for a nonconforming use of the property.
Given the fact that this has been a protracted drain on our taxpayers, I hope
you will consider either holding up the hearing of this matter until the
Township can have a closing and reimbursement of the interest and the
principal, or if you do go ahead with the hearing, make your decision
contingent upon such. And at this point I’d like to add to my letter, I hope
you will also wait and hear more from FOSPC, perhaps from David Carter who is a
former Committeeman for 6 years–did deal directly with the Scibilia’s and is
much more familiar with the day to day history of this. Given the history
of this preservation project , there is, based on its history until now, no
reason to predict that the Township will see it’s reimbursement for many, many
years, if at all.”
Ms. Hoffman asked Ms. Bonette
if the Board were to go ahead and grant the variance, if she had first hand
knowledge of what would happen to the preserved piece of land. Ms. Bonette
replied, “Based on the other times the Township kind of turned and looked the
other way and allowed some of these other operations to continue without
challenging them, in the hopes that the Scibilia’s would pursue getting this
lot line question changed, twice they did not.” Ms. Hoffman clarified that she
meant from a State or County point of view, would the preservation be
jeopardized if the variances were granted. Attorney Waterbury commented that
the Township Attorney may be the best person to address this. She stated, “My
understanding though, is, I don’t think that granting or not granting the use
variance would really have an effect one way or the other as I understood the
issue is that part of the building is on the lot, not that there may or may not
be a use variance for a use to take place...the fact that the property may be
deed restricted should not factor into your decision on the use variance
because legally it is of no relevance when you’re analyzing the use variance.”
Ms. Bonette commented that
rectifying the lot line issue was a “motivating” factor. She said, “I think the
effect of the motivation of all of the parties, without pointing any fingers at
anybody, this requires all of the parties to cooperate and make a sincere
effort and I’m not satisfied...that all of the parties have made very much of
an effort–some of the parties have made more of an effort and some have made
less.”
Planner Banisch clarified
that if the lot line issues were resolved, Ms. Bonette did not feel the
proposed application would be a detriment to the Township or the property. Ms.
Bonette replied, “Absolutely not. I have no objections to it.”
Attorney Edwards clarified
that Ms. Bonette testified that she did not have any direct knowledge of the
Scibilia’s creating any difficulties or obstacles in trying to resolve the lot
line issue. Ms. Bonette said, “Well, I can say no–I have heard many complaints
from Township Committee members and some from Open Space Committee members
about how they wished that Greg (Scibilia) would do this–or they wished that
Greg (Scibilia) would do that.” Attorney Edwards asked specifically about
direct knowledge, Ms. Bonette said , “No.” Attorney Edwards asked Ms. Bonette
if it was her perception that residents are disinclined to preserve land
because of timing and other issues. Ms. Bonette responded, “Absolutely...in
fact the County has now made a deliberate effort to speed things up.”
Attorney Edwards asked
Engineer Mary Pace Goldman to draw a comparison between the proposed water
usage on the site with those that have been there previously. Engineer Goldman
replied, “Based on the current septic code, our proposed office/storage use of
the building is 2400 sq. ft. The septic code has a 0.125 gallons per sq. ft.
per day–so that works out to 300 gallons per day under our proposed use. Under
the existing approved septic, which I believe was constructed in 1991 based on
information we got from the Scibilia’s, they had migrant workers there, so the
system was designed for a three bedroom home and that is, again, using the
septic code, a 500 gallon per day use. So we would be a less intense water
use.”
Planner Elizabeth C. McKenzie
came forward. She was qualified as an expert having given testimony before the
Board in the past. Planner McKenzie addressed the use variance issues,
explaining that the site will remain rural in its appearance, the existing sign
will change slightly–but meet all code requirements, and the outside grounds of
the site will be cleaned up. Planner McKenzie stated a D-1 variance is required
for the use since it is not permitted in the zone. Special reasons must be
justified and the positive and negative criteria must be addressed.
Planner McKenzie said, “I
think allowing this site to be used in a manner that is either similar to the
previous use or actually less intense than the previous use, and can actually
make use of these agricultural structures, represents an appropriate and
efficient use of land.”
Princeton Hydro is proposing
a very unique service business use. Planner McKenzie commented, “I think maybe
this is the principle special reason we are talking about–it promotes goals
that are very consistent, in terms of the work that is done, that are very
consistent with many of the goals in
your own Master Plan and certainly many of the goals that you are trying to
achieve in the Planning and Zoning of East Amwell.”
Planner McKenzie addressed
four purposes in the Municipal Land Use Law to promote the use variance
Princeton Hydro is seeking:
1.
Encouraging municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all
lands in the State in a manner that promotes the public health, safety, morals
and general welfare. Planner McKenzie commented, “...this is really an
appropriate use for this particular site given its history, given the buildings
that are located on it and given the need for these buildings to be occupied.”
2.
Providing sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses that
includes commercial uses both public and private according to their respective
environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all NJ citizens.
Planner McKenzie commented, “That I think is clearly promoted.”
3.
Promoting a desirable visual environment through creative development
techniques and good civic design and arrangements. Planner McKenzie commented,
“I think retaining rural agricultural buildings on a site and getting a site
cleaned up certainly promotes that.”
4.
To encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and
activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such
development into the more efficient use of land. Planner McKenzie commented, “I
think that goes directly to the issue of making adaptive the use of these
existing buildings.”
With regard to any detriment
to the public good. It was noted by Planner McKenzie that the proposed
application will have limited impact on the neighbors, and the site will end up
looking better than it does now if it is inhabited and maintained.
Additionally, there will be no impairment to the intent and purpose of the
Township’s Zone plan and Zoning Ordinance because the nature of the proposed
use is not dissimilar in some of the attributes to what occurs in existing
agricultural buildings that are presently permitted on farms. In terms of the
enhanced quality of proof required for the D-1 variance, it was noted that the
unique nature of Princeton Hydro’s business could be considered to satisfy this
requirement.
Township Planner Frank
Banisch replied that he agreed with Ms. McKenzie that this application is
consistent with the intent of the Municipal Land Use Law but had a concern with
when the farm stand stops being a direct outlet for agricultural produce, which
is the Principle purpose of the Amwell Valley District, do we in some way lose
something–or is the environmental benefit that will be provided by the service
offered by Princeton Hydro sufficient to balance the farm stand loss. Planner
McKenzie replied, “In terms of the benefits of what we are proposing...remember
right now this retail outlet is vacant, and has been for quite some time, so
you’re not getting a retail outlet there now...what we are proposing is to make
beneficial use of a building.” It was noted the use Princeton Hydro is
proposing does not compromise the site’s ability to revert back to the use that
was previously there.
Ms. Hoffman commented, “In my
mind, when I think about the Master Plan and what it is trying to achieve with
the Amwell Valley District, and the preservation of farms, what I think I’m
interested in hearing is how does it promote the Scibilia’s to keep farming
their farm–they’re obviously renting it out for a reason–for income–and
that..to me, has to be taken into account as to how it’s helping the viability
of the farm and if it’s a compatible use. Planner McKenzie responded, “I think
to the extent that these buildings can provide a source of income for the
Scibilia’s...you know farmers tell us that they can’t make a living farming,
farming itself doesn’t allow you to live on the income that you produce...but
if you have alternative sources of income...such as being able to use farm
buildings for storage or rent them out...that does help to keep a farmer
interested in continuing to stay on the farm.”
Planner Banisch added that in
the interest of trying to keep farmers farming and farm land more productive
and profitable, in that zone, we have opened the door for some other things. He
noted that the concept in the zone plan has been drawn broadly enough to
encompass that zone having a vision for allowing agricultural buildings to be
used by other businesses. With regard to Ms. Hoffman’s point, Planner Banisch
said, “The unique facts here, that would allow you to make the finding that in
this particular case, storage of this sort of stuff would be okay because of
the environmental benefits it provides.”
Engineer O’Neal noted the
following points for the Board to consider: Should the lot line be moved, the
septic system will be bisected and that is a Board of Health issue. There is
the need for a subdivision plan to be approved. The side yard and front yard
setbacks need to be clarified because they can’t be determined by the scale of
the plan that was provided. An easement will be required for the parking area
itself as well as access to it because if the lot lines are moved, the parking
area will be partially located on both pieces of property. Engineer O’Neal
commented that a site plan will be required if the need for additional parking
spaces occurs. Additionally, landscaping and lighting issues may have to be
reviewed further.
Sherrie Binder read the site
review committee report for the record, a copy of which is attached.
A motion by Freda Routh,
seconded by Nancy Cunningham to open to the public was unanimously approved.
Chris Paris a John Ringo Road
resident came forward and questioned the precedent being set if the Board
approved the application with the Farmland Preservation issues unresolved.
Attorney Waterbury replied, “There is nothing the Board can do to affect the
existing deed restrictions one way or the other.”
Andrea Bonette came forward
again and said, “I would just like to dislodge, for the record, any memories
you may have of the Attorney (Erica Edwards) having characterized this as an
‘administrative snafu’–I think it vastly exceeds an administrative snafu.”
Dena Scibilia came forward
again and responded to the comments of Andrea Bonette saying, “We never got a
copy of that letter (written by Andrea Bonette) and I feel that we’ve gotten
ambushed here with a letter that describes my husband and I as being
uncooperative and not interested in putting a close to this Farmland Preservation.
We chose voluntarily to preserve our land...this portion with the lot line
change had nothing to do with us, it had to do with a survey that we didn’t
know was incorrect until we got the preservation going. My husband works very
hard. He has cooperated fully...and at this point it is all on them because we
have submitted everything that we needed to submit...I take exception to where
we are being treated as children where we have to have a motivation to get this
farmland preservation issue put to rest. You can’t hold us hostage from renting
our piece of property and letting us have some income so we can stay on that
property because of a Farmland Preservation lot line problem that is being
worked on...what kind of interest would we have to not get this finished–it is
completely ridiculous.”
Attorney Waterbury clarified
that she had addressed in her memo that adjusting the lot line would be a
condition of approval. Attorney Waterbury noted that her concern was truly from
a land use perspective in terms of granting a variance for a use that will be
on two completely separate tax lots. Attorney Waterbury said, “It is certainly
not within the purview of this Board...whatever may be happening between the
Scibilia’s and the Township you are not taking into consideration–it’s neither
here nor there. The only thing that is relevant is the current configuration of
that lot line and the fact that the building that is the subject of the
application is on either side of the lot line.”
Terry Golda of John Ringo
Road came forward and endorsed the application.
A motion by Paul Gavzy,
seconded by Freda Routh to close to the public was unanimously approved.
Ms. Hoffman stated, “After
hearing all of the testimony, I am satisfied that the proposed use is a
conditional use that we need to grant–that it is appropriate for this site,
that it is consistent with our Master Plan and does uphold the MLUL and would
be an appropriate business to have in that area.”
Ms. Posselt expressed concern
with the building straddling the property line.
A motion by Paul Gavzy,
seconded by Sue Posselt to grant the variance with the condition that the
applicant be allowed to move his business into the building provided the lot
line issue is actively pursued and corrected within one year, and with the
condition that the approval does not allow the use of the pole barn on lot 37
was unanimously approved.
Roll Call Vote: Paul Gavzy: Yes, Sue Posselt: Yes, Nancy Cunningham:
Yes, Kathi Hoffman: Yes, Pete Kneski: Yes, Freda Routh: Yes, Sherrie Binder:
Yes.
Open to the Public
A motion by Paul Gavzy,
seconded by Sherrie Binder to open to the public was unanimously approved.
Jessica Wysocki a Wertsville
Road resident came forward and expressed concern about the air strip that is
located on the property next door to her. She explained that the property is
being advertised/auctioned that it has an air strip. Ms. Wysocki explained that
the air strip is a preexisting nonconforming issue and now that the licensed
pilot previously using the air strip has passed away, it would be a good time
to do away with the air strip for the public safety of the surrounding
neighborhood. Several Board members all responded that the Board could not make
any comment on issues that were not before them in the form of an application.
Andrea Bonette came forward
again and questioned if the condition in the Princeton Hydro resolution
concerning the lot line change needed to be clarified to state exactly what
that means. Attorney Waterbury responded, “From our perspective, because we
can’t specify the exact dimensions...the intent is–we want to make sure that
all of the building is on lot 37.03 and that is what the condition will state.”
A motion by Nancy Cunningham,
seconded by Sue Posselt to close to the public was unanimously approved.
A motion by Paul Gavzy,
seconded by Sherrie Binder to adjourn was unanimously approved.
The meeting adjourned at
11:07 PM.
_______________________________
Maria Andrews, Administrative
Officer