EAST AMWELL

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - MINUTES

Municipal Building – 7:30 PM

May12, 2009

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 12, 2009 in the Main Meeting Room of the Municipal Building, 1070 Route 202/31, Ringoes, NJ by Administrative Officer Andrews.

In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, Ms. Andrews announced this was a regularly scheduled meeting pursuant to the Annual Meeting Notice as published in the January 29, 2009 issue of the Hunterdon County Democrat, filed in the Township Clerk’s Office, and posted on the Bulletin Board on May 6, 2009.

Roll Call and Agenda Review

Present: Sherrie Binder

Nancy Cunningham – Chair

Gloria Frederick

Gael Gardner

Paul Gavzy

Sue Posselt

Kendra Schroeder

Amy Zambrowski – Alt. #1

Anne Williams – Alt. #2

Attorney Waterbury

Planner Banisch

Engineer O’Neal

Absent: No one.

Presentation of Minutes

A motion by Paul Gavzy, seconded by Sue Posselt to approve the minutes from April 14, 2009 was approved with some revisions noted and Ms. Frederick abstaining.

Presentation of Bills for Payment

A motion by Gael Gardner, seconded by Kendra Schroeder to approve the vouchers for payment as listed on the agenda was unanimously approved.

Correspondence

Chair Cunningham noted that the correspondence will be dealt with as it comes up over the course of the meeting.

Applications to be Deemed Complete or Incomplete – None

East Amwell Township Board of Adjustment Minutes – 5-12-09

Applications for Public Hearing

Ken & Melody Turash – B: 25 L:2.11 – 36 Back Brook Road, Ringoes, NJ 08551

Present for the application was property owner Ken Turash. He came forward and was sworn in along with all of the Board’s professionals. Mr. Turash explained that they recently moved to East Amwell from Hillsborough where they had 2.9 acres of land with 3 horses, 3 goats and a four stall barn. He expressed that they would like to have the same lifestyle here and are requesting to keep one horse and one pony on their property. Mr. Turash added that they are also requesting a 24’ x 36’ barn. He noted that moving was not an easy decision and they were aware that they would need to obtain variances for the property. He stated they took the chance and bought the home because East Amwell encourages farming. Mr. Turash explained that his wife and daughter are horse lovers and it is his belief that the proposed application is non-intrusive to the adjoining neighbors and fits the character of the community. It was noted that Mr. Turash spoke to his neighbors about the proposed application and no one expressed any objection.

The subject property is an undersized 3.96 acre lot in the Amwell Valley Agricultural District. The lot is situated on Back Brook Road at an “S” curve creating two front yards on the parcel. Additionally there is a 300’ site easement in the front of the property.

Mr. Turash explained they are seeking permission to put up a 24’ x 36’ barn which they believe to be the smallest possible size to accommodate their needs. Chair Cunningham clarified the height of the proposed barn. Mr. Turash confirmed the barn will not exceed 20’ in height and will not have an overhang. Mr. Gavzy asked for clarification on the proposed location of the barn. Attorney Waterbury explained that according to the definition of front yard under the ordinance, the barn is proposed to be located in the property’s front yard and therefore the Turash’s will require a variance.

Chair Cunningham asked how many acres the surrounding property owners have. Mr. Turash commented that there is a 10 acre lot next door and one across the street, a 3.5 acre lot nearby and approximately 80 acres of undeveloped land behind his property which is owned by Bryce Thompson. It was noted that the property across the street from the Turash’s has approximately 8 horses on it and there are some larger horse farms further down on Back Brook Road.

Ms. Binder questioned the size of the proposed barn. She commented that typically a two stall barn would be sufficient for a pony and a horse and asked what the other space in the proposed barn will be used for. Mr. Turash explained the barn will have a tack area/wash area and hay storage. Ms. Binder asked if having a tack room, a feed room and a wash stall were all necessary or if they were luxuries. Mr. Turash felt they were necessary. Ms. Binder and Ms. Gardner disagreed citing their own personal experiences. Ms. Binder suggested a 24’ x 24’ barn would provide plenty of space for a two stall barn with hay storage. Ms. Gardner agreed.

Mr. Gavzy expressed concern with the placement of the barn and questioned whether or not the property was large enough to accommodate what is being proposed. Mr. Turash commented that there is a hedge row on the property that would provide a site buffer for the neighbors. Planner Banisch confirmed that there is a prominent tree line on the lot.

East Amwell Township Board of Adjustment Minutes – 5-12-09

Chair Cunningham asked where the pasture fencing will be located. Mr. Turash explained that the pasture area will be out of the setback and site easement area. He indicated the pasture will be approximately 175’ across by 150’ long in a rectangular shape.

Exhibit A-1 was presented for illustration purposes. The exhibit was a copy of the plot plan originally submitted with the application and revised to show the hand drawn proposed location and configuration of the horse pastures. Engineer O’Neal clarified that the pasture will run parallel to the south property line from the southeast corner and will run in a westerly direction toward Back Brook Road, making a 90 degree turn and stopping at the site easement line. It was noted that the fencing will be at least 25’ from the house.

Ms. Gardner asked how many acres of pasturing is being proposed. Engineer O’Neal commented that the pasture area will be approximately 150’ x 350’ which would provide a total of about 1.2 acres of pasture. Ms. Gardner noted that 1 acre of pasture per horse is typically recommended. Mr. Turash commented that he could enlarge the pasture area to an “L” shaped configuration if the Board wished. Planner Banisch clarified that the “L” would come behind the house. He also inquired as to where the septic area is located. Mr. Turash stated a portion of the pasture would be located on the septic field. He stated he had horses running over his septic field at his prior home and said, “It was never an issue.” Ms. Gardner and Planner Banisch both commented that this is not a recommended management practice. Planner Banisch asked Mr. Turash if it was possible for him to devote two acres of land outside the septic area for the pasture and barn. Mr. Turash said, “Yes.”

Engineer O’Neal suggested that another .3 acres of pasture could be created if the fencing was extended behind the home toward the driveway. It was noted that this “L” shaped pasture configuration would allow for a total of 1.5 acres of pasture for both horses.

Ms. Posselt asked about manure management on the lot. Mr. Turash replied that a portion of the manure would be used for gardening with the remaining manure to be raked and spread.

Engineer O’Neal commented that his only concern is that nothing be placed in the site easement. He indicated that he was the Township Engineer when the lot was created and the easement was a condition of approval when the lot was created. Mr. Turash stated he understood and agreed that he would not do anything to jeopardize the integrity of the site easement.

Planner Banisch commented that an undersized lot variance is required to permit both the house and the barn on a lot less than 10 acres in the Amwell Valley District. Additionally a variance is required to allow the barn in the front yard. It was noted that based on the size of the proposed structure, the barn is classified as a Class III accessory structure.

East Amwell Township Board of Adjustment Minutes – 5-12-09

Attorney Waterbury explained that under the MLUL very specific requirements must be met to grant the requested variances: Hardship – which was explained as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property or exceptional topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affecting a piece of property. Flexible “c” Variance – where the purposes of the MLUL would be advanced by deviating from the zoning ordinance requirements and the benefits would substantially outweigh any detriment. Attorney Waterbury stated that if the Board approves the application, they must find that what Mr. Turash is requesting falls within one of these two categories.

Ms. Gardner suggested that Mr. Turash relocate the proposed barn on the line on the plot plan that says 159.81 which drops from the hot tub to the back property line. She explained that if the barn was turned and situated on this line closer to the house, and the pastures were configured in the “L” shape previously discussed, then the horses would be able to access both pasture areas. Ms. Gardner stated horses are very hard on land and if they are not pastured properly you will have dirt and flies and neighbor problems. Ms. Gardner also agreed that the barn should be cut down in size to 24’ x 24’ as Ms. Binder had suggested. Attorney Waterbury commented that the relocation of the barn would get the structure out of the front yard and eliminate the need for one of the variances.

Ms. Posselt stated she did not feel comfortable with the Board reworking the applicant’s application. Mr. Gavzy commented that he would like to carry the public hearing to the Board’s next month’s meeting and give Mr. Turash the opportunity to provide a new plot plan reflecting all of the revisions suggested by the Board.

It was noted that there was no site visit conducted on this property.

Mr. Turash stated, “I will make concessions for whatever I need to do to please you—to make it work for everybody.” Ms. Frederick asked what the alternative would be if the application was not approved. Mr. Turash replied, “It is a beautiful house…but my wife hates it until we get our horses back…we’re not going to be happy and we will move.” Ms. Posselt asked Mr. Turash if he considered boarding his horses across the street. He stated he believed they were at capacity across the street.

Mr. Gavzy asked Mr. Turash if he had attempted to buy adjoining land to make his lot conforming. Mr. Turash indicated Mr. Thompson wanted $35,000 per acre and he was not financially able to purchase any additional land at this time.

A motion by Gloria Frederick, seconded by Sherrie Binder to open to the public was unanimously approved. Frances Gavigan of 123 Wertsville Road came forward and was sworn in. She expressed concern with the Board discouraging horse ownership in the Amwell Valley District and stated she believes many people successfully manage horses on small lots. Ms. Gavigan also commented that local farmers help support local businesses and she stated this is a farm friendly community.

East Amwell Township Board of Adjustment Minutes – 5-12-09

A motion by Gloria Frederick, seconded by Gael Gardner to close to the public was unanimously approved.

A motion by Sherrie Binder, seconded by Gael Gardner to approve the application with the conditions that the barn be moved out of the front yard, the barn be limited to 24’ x 24’ with a maximum height of 20 feet, the pasture area be configured in an “L” shape to maximize pasture space, a new barn plan be submitted and a new plot plan be submitted showing the barn and the septic area was approved.

Roll Call Vote: Sherrie Binder: Yes, Gael Gardner: Yes, Gloria Frederick: No, Paul Gavzy: No, Sue Posselt: No, Kendra Schroeder: Yes, Nancy Cunningham: Yes.

Planner Banisch and Engineer O’Neal left the meeting at this time, 8:55 PM.

Old Business

Status Update on Scibilia

It was noted that the Board had received a status update memo from FOSPC Administrator Judy Conard who indicated progress was being made on the matter but cannot be completed until Mr. Scibilia relocates the septic system. The lot line will not be perfected by the Board’s prior June 1, 2009 extension deadline. Attorney Waterbury commented that the Board did not have an application before them requesting an extension from Mr. Scibilia and she stated, “I don’t know if on your own authority you can go back and amend your approval. So unless and until Mr. Scibilia appears before you and requests another modification, the variance is going to lapse on June 1, 2009 if the lot line adjustment is not taken care of.” It was noted that Mr. Scibilia will have to file a new application to modify a condition of approval if the variance lapses.

There was some discussion on whether or not Mr. Scibilia and his tenant, Princeton Hydro are aware of the situation. Ms. Andrews indicated she has sent several letters as well as copies of the memorialized Resolutions. Attorney Waterbury commented, “How could he not be aware? He was here when you granted the approval and this Board spent considerable time discussing how much of an extension to grant…some of you were inclined to only extend it to March 1, 2009, some of you were inclined not to extend it at all…I do recall there was a lengthy discussion about the date and I also believe that one of the purposes for requiring these status updates was to monitor this and to ensure that everyone was aware and making progress toward meeting the new modified deadline.”

The Board requested Ms. Andrews send Mr. Scibilia another reminder that the variances will expire on June 1, 2009 with a copy also sent to Princeton Hydro.

A motion by Gloria Frederick, seconded by Paul Gavzy to move the agenda was unanimously approved.

East Amwell Township Board of Adjustment Minutes – 5-12-09

New Business

Approval of Unionville Vineyards Resolution – Modification of Use Variance Approval: Hours of Operation – Block 32 Lot 1: 9 Rocktown Road, Ringoes, NJ 08551

A motion by Sherrie Binder, seconded by Paul Gavzy to approve the Unionville Vineyards resolution was approved.

Roll Call Vote: Sherrie Binder; Yes, Paul Gavzy: Yes, Nancy Cunningham: Yes, Sue Posselt: Yes, Kendra Schroeder: Yes, Amy Zambrowski: Yes.

Comments of the Board Members

Ms. Frederick commented on the Board’s “rewriting” of an application this evening. Attorney Waterbury interrupted saying, “You are outside the public hearing, but until you actually memorialize your resolution on this application it is still an open application, so I am a little uncomfortable discussing anything related to it now that the public hearing is closed and the applicant has gone home and the public has gone home.” It was the consensus of the Board to list this topic of discussion on next month’s agenda.

Open to the Public

A motion by Gael Gardner, seconded by Sue Posselt to open to the public was unanimously approved. There being no public, a motion by Gloria Frederick, seconded by Sherrie Binder to close to the public was unanimously approved.

Adjournment

A motion by Paul Gavzy, seconded by Sue Posselt to adjourn was unanimously approved.

The meeting adjourned at 9:09 PM.

________________________________

Maria Andrews, Administrative Officer