EAST AMWELL
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT - MINUTES
Municipal Building - 7:30
PM
June 12, 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 June 12, 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 June 6, 2007.
Roll Call and Agenda
Review
Present: Nancy
Cunningham
Gloria
Frederick
Gael
Gardner
Paul
Gavzy
Pete
Kneski
Freda
Routh
Sherrie
Binder (Alt. 2)
Absent: Kathi
Hoffman
Sue
Posselt (Alt. 1)
Chairman Kneski noted that
since a regular Board member was absent, alternate Board member Binder will be
eligible to vote.
A motion by Nancy Cunningham,
seconded by Paul Gavzy to approve the minutes from 5/8/07 was approved with Ms.
Frederick and Ms. Gardner abstaining.
A motion by Gael Gardner,
seconded by Paul Gavzy to approve the following list of bills for payment was
unanimously approved:
A.
Hopewell Valley Engineering
1. Services to Hess - April 2007 $584.00
2. Services to Maier - April 2007 $36.50
3. Services to Hunterdon Storage - April 2007 $255.50
B.
Maria Andrews - Secretarial & Administrative
1. April 23 - 29, 2007 (14.75 Hours @ $16.85) $248.54
2. April 30 - May 6, 2007 (14.50 Hours @ $16.85) $244.33
3. May 7 - 13, 2007 (18.50 Hours @ $16.85) $311.73
4. May 14 - 20, 2007 (14 Hours @ $16.85) $235.90
5. May 21 - 27, 2007 (14.25 Hours @ $16.85) $240.11
6. May 28 - June 3, 2007 (14 Hours @ $16.85) $235.90
Regarding the correspondence
listed on the agenda, Chairman Kneski noted that there was a letter from the
County Agricultural Development Board (CADB) regarding the Jorgensen Farm,
specifically that there will be a public hearing at the County Complex on Route
12 on 6/14/07 at 8:00 PM regarding their proposal to rebuild the barn that
burnt down.
Zoning Board of Adjustment – Minutes
June 12, 2007
Applications to be Deemed Complete or Incomplete - None
Applications for Public
Hearing
William Maier – Block
21 Lot 1.14 – AJ-07-05 – 117 Cider Mill
Road, Ringoes
Present
for the application was Attorney Christopher Stevenson on behalf of the
applicant William Maier. Attorney Stevenson explained he was before the Board
seeking use variance approval for the baseball field since the Board had
previously found that the field was a structure and not a permissible accessory
use within the zone. The application is for approval of the field currently
located on the property along with two associated bulk variances: To allow the
ball field to stay in the front yard and to permit it to stay within the 75’
setback.
Attorney
Stevenson summarized that the Board previously found that the field was a
structure and not a permissible accessory use within the zone.
Exhibit A-1: A mounted version of an
updated site plan was presented showing the fence that had recently been
installed along the home plate and first base line and home plate and third
base line. It was noted the fence is a 6’ white PVC privacy fence.
Exhibit A-2: A list of self imposed
conditions Mr. Maier is willing to place on the ball field was presented.
Christopher A. Melick, a
professional Land Surveyor/Planner came forward and was qualified as an
expert. Mr. Melick addressed the
positive and negative criteria of the variance, stating, “Recreational
activities are so closely connected to residential use that I view the baseball
field so closely related to the residential use that they are almost
intertwined.” He compared the baseball field activity to that of soccer and
volleyball. Mr. Melick noted the property is over 10 acres, the ball field is
setback nearly 400 feet from the road and not clearly visible from Cider Mill
Road. Exhibits A-3 and A-4: Photos
demonstrating the ball field cannot be easily seen from Cider Mill Road were
presented. Mr. Melick addressed the bulk variances being requested by noting
the topography of the site. He presented Exhibit
A-5: A photo taken from the Maier’s driveway looking at the ball field
depicting the vastness of his property. Mr. Melick explained the “usable”
portion of the lot is up front because of the septic field location, the large
wooded area, the stream that runs through the property and the setbacks that
determined where the dwelling had to be located all factored into the location
of the existing ball field. With regard to the negative criteria, Mr. Melick
stated, “Its been proven through time that playing baseball on a residential
property is as common as any recreational activity...soccer, football—and
allowing baseball to be played on this field will not be detrimental to the
public good and will not violate the purpose and intent of the zone plan or the
zoning ordinance.”
Ms. Cunningham questioned how
dense the wooded areas are on the lot. Mr. Melick said they were dense woods
with undergrowth and mature trees.
Zoning Board of Adjustment – Minutes
June 12, 2007
Ms. Routh questioned the
placement of the field and suggested that it could be moved north of the house based
on the elevations shown on the site plan. Mr. Melick explained that the septic
field is in that vicinity. Ms. Routh also suggested an area directly in front
of the house. Mr. Melick noted the well was in that location and additionally
that area wasn’t shielded as much with the existing vegetation or from the view
shed of Cider Mill Road. Mr. Kneski suggested shifting the field “directly up”
so that the first and third baseline basically follow the contouring on the
property in order to meet the setback. Mr. Melick replied, “From what Bill
(Maier) told me originally...that would be getting too close to be able to hit
balls...if there are cars parked in the driveway...”
Ms. Frederick asked about
potential spectators and traffic and players coming to games. Attorney
Stevenson replied, “My understanding is there will be no spectators. The field
is primarily for the use of Mr. Maier, his son, his son’s coach and if he has a
small group of friends over, perhaps part of his team to practice, it would be
whatever parents came along parked in the driveway...he wasn’t intending to
have games where people would come and watch.”
The Board took a break from
8:31 PM – 8:37 PM
The Board discussed the 75’
setback extensively. Attorney Stevenson explained, “When Mr. Maier put the
field in, he thought the setback was 25’. Not only did he think the setback was
25’, the zoning officer at the time also did, as did I, as did the Township
Attorney when we were trying to resolve this with a zoning permit. The 75’
setback is mentioned as an obscure footnote in a schedule in the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Furda was operating under the assumption that it was 25’ and
even told Mr. Maier that, then Mr. Furda realized and brought it to everyone’s
attention.” Ms. Gardner commented that once it was brought to Mr. Maier’s
attention, it would have been a very smart thing to move the field into
compliance. Attorney Stevenson noted that by that time, Mr. Maier had already
put in extensive landscaping. Ms. Cunningham wanted to clarify that even if
everyone was working under the 25’ setback assumption, the field is actually
located 15’ from the property line.
Planner Michael Bolan
commented that although Mr. Melick outlined why he thought the field was a
suitable use there should be some testimony specifically addressing the
positive criteria outlined in the MLUL. Mr. Bolan stated there should be some
testimony as to what “purposes” are advanced by allowing the ball field use.
Mr. Bolan also provided the Board with some measurements as reference points.
He noted home plate to the front of Maier’s house is 385’ and home plate to the
turning point in the driveway is 325’.
Mr. Melick addressed Mr.
Bolan’s concerns by stating, “I think that as part of my testimony I really did
want to focus on what I thought was specific issues relating to a ball field.
Quite often when we talk about use variances and we talk about advancing the
Municipal Land Use Law we’re talking on a larger scale—we’re talking use
variances for car repair shops or other uses that are obviously not consistent
with the zone...I have to say that if you think in terms of allowing baseball
to be played, it certainly advances the intent of the Municipal Land Use Law.”
Mr. Kneski commented that
there were no stormwater management issues noted per Engineer O’Neal’s report.
Ms. Gardner read the site
review report for the record, a copy of which is attached.
Zoning Board of Adjustment – Minutes
June 12, 2007
A motion by Gloria Frederick,
seconded by Gael Gardner to open to the public was unanimously approved.
Rob Gilbert of 109 Cider Mill
Road came forward and expressed concern with the potential intensity of the use
regarding noise and activity.
Pam Koopman of 107 Cider Mill
Road came forward and expressed that the baseball field was not allowed under
the ordinance and believed that the Board should not approve it for this
residential area.
Greg Manners of 340
Wertsville Road came forward and endorsed the field saying he would rather see
kids playing ball than riding ATV vehicles through his hay fields and commended
Mr. Maier for what he is doing for his son.
Diane Gilbert of 109 Cider
Mill Road came forward and expressed concern with the potential intensity of
the use and noted that she didn’t think any conditions placed on the ball field
would be enforceable.
A motion by Paul Gavzy,
seconded by Gloria Frederick to close to the public was unanimously approved.
Attorney Stevenson summarized
the proposed application saying, “Mr. Maier has indicated that he will use this
field subject to conditions he has self imposed...I don’t think we have any
indication that as he’s used the field subject to those conditions, he has
caused any harm or detriment to his neighbors, we have training for him and his
son and his coach, we have his teammates...once a week during the season. There
have been no games on the field. There will be no games on the field. There
will be the occasional practice...it is a very limited use of his residential
property for recreational purposes. I think it is consistent with other uses
that are permissible as accessory uses...the neighbors have expressed their
concerns—the concerns that I’m hearing are not so much that he’s doing
it—because I haven’t heard anyone express a concern tonight that they have a
problem necessarily with what has transpired there, it’s just that ‘Could it
get bigger?’ ‘Could it get larger?’ we say no because...he’s asked the Board to
put conditions on to limit that—to control it. There are mechanisms to make
that enforceable.”
Attorney Waterbury commented,
“I would recommend in this instance that you actually have an instrument
recorded into Maier’s chain of title...anyone doing a title search on that
property—subsequent buyers, would see those conditions right there in a
recorded document in the chain of title, so it wouldn’t be an issue of having
to rely on somebody remembering in the zoning office.”
Ms. Routh expressed concern
with Mr. Maier not being in attendance to provide testimony and with there not
being any photographs of the house and the rest of the 10 acres. She suggested
maybe the hearing should be continued so Mr. Maier could attend. The Board
consensus was that Mr. Maier’s presence at the meeting wouldn’t have any
bearing on possible conditions of approval.
The Board struggled with
formulating a motion and it was suggested by Attorney Stevenson that the Board
ask the neighbors their opinion on having the field moved to meet the
75’setback. Ms. Binder addressed the Koopman’s asking if their visibility would
be affected if the field was moved closer to Maier’s house. Pam Koopman replied, “It would actually
affect it more because we would really see it. The bottom line is, it should
not be permitted on a front yard and in a residential section and it has been
taken far beyond the scope of just Dad and Son playing ball...there is on an
average of 8 to 12 players there every week as well as some adult parents,
Fathers playing and it would actually be even more apparent if it was 75’ in
from the property lines.” Rob Gilbert also commented saying, “My perspective on
the setback issue is that it is potentially, visually more obtrusive if it’s in
the middle of his lot. It doesn’t bother us as much where it is now, but our
much greater concern is the intensity of use.”
A motion by Sherrie Binder,
seconded by Gloria Frederick to approve the use variance with the following
conditions was approved: The baseball field must be moved to comply with the
75’ setback, there will be no lights, bleachers, dug out, foul poles or
permanent structures, the backstop must be put away (out of sight) off season,
a maximum of 4 players are allowed on the field from April 1st –
October 31st of each year with a once a week exception of up to 12
players on the field, and the conditions of the resolution will be recorded in
the chain of title.
Roll Call Vote:
Sherrie Binder: Yes, Gloria Frederick: Yes, Nancy Cunningham: Yes, Gael
Gardner: Yes, Paul Gavzy: Yes, Freda Routh: No, Pete Kneski: Yes.
Planner Michael Bolan left
the meeting at this time, 10:15 PM.
New Business
A motion by Paul Gavzy,
seconded by Nancy Cunningham to approve the Princeton Hydro Resolution was
approved.
Roll Call Vote:
Paul Gavzy: Yes, Nancy Cunningham: Yes, Pete Kneski: Yes, Freda Routh: Yes,
Sherrie Binder: Yes.
A motion by Nancy Cunningham,
seconded by Paul Gavzy to approve the Cortelyou Resolution was approved.
Roll Call Vote:
Nancy Cunningham: Yes, Paul Gavzy: Yes, Pete Kneski: Yes, Sherrie Binder: Yes.
A motion by Nancy Cunningham,
seconded by Paul Gavzy to approve the Curtiss Resolution was approved.
Roll Call Vote:
Nancy Cunningham: Yes, Paul Gavzy: Yes, Gloria Frederick: Yes, Gael Gardner:
Yes, Pete Kneski: Yes, Freda Routh: Yes, Sherrie Binder: Yes.
Open to the Public
A motion by Gloria Frederick,
seconded by Nancy Cunningham to open to the public was unanimously approved.
Rob and Diane Gilbert of 109 Cider Mill Road came forward and expressed how
“disheartened” they were with the Board’s decision to approve Maier’s use
variance and how they wished they could have commented further on the conditions
the Board placed on the approval. Ms. Routh asked Attorney Waterbury if the
Gilberts could appeal the Board’s approval. Attorney Waterbury confirmed they
could appeal, “45 days from the date of publication stating the Resolution was
memorialized.” Ms. Routh clarified that they would have to appeal to the Court,
not the Board. Ms. Cunningham suggested that the Board could be clearer when
opening to the public that, that is the only opportunity for the public to
comment. A motion by Freda Routh, seconded by Nancy Cunningham to close to the
public was unanimously approved.
Zoning Board of Adjustment – Minutes
June 12, 2007
Comments of the Board Members
Administrative Officer
Andrews asked the Board if they would be interested in splitting the cost of a
new easel with the Planning Board because the current easel is broken and sits too
low. Exhibits often sit below the dais and are difficult to see. The consensus
of the Board was to split the cost. Ms. Andrews then asked if she could order
Tyvek envelopes (in one size) for mailing the packets since the current manilla
envelopes require extra tape to seal and mail. The consensus of the Board was
to order the envelopes.
Ms. Cunningham suggested that
the Board review the information sheet provided at the Board’s meetings
regarding the “meeting procedure” and “public comment.” It was decided that Ms.
Andrews will include the information sheet in the Board’s packets next month to
be reviewed at the next meeting.
A motion by Gloria Frederick,
seconded by Pete Kneski to adjourn was unanimously approved.
The meeting adjourned at
10:32 PM.
________________________________
Maria Andrews, Administrative
Officer