REGULAR MEETING
Municipal Bldg
530 West Hill Rd
Glen Gardner, N.J.
The Regular Meeting of the
Lebanon Township Board of Adjustment was called to order at
Notice of this meeting was
provided for in the “Annual Meeting Notice Schedule” adopted by this board on
SWEAR IN: Wayne Eberle Class
IV Alternate I Member Unexpired Term 12/06
Ms. Glashoff asked Attorney
Gallina to do the honors and swear in Wayne Eberle as Alternate I. The board congratulated Mr. Eberle.
At this time, Ms. Glashoff
stated that since both the Chairman and Vice Chairman were absent, the board
will need to appoint a Chair for this evening.
Ms. Glashoff asked for
nominations for Chair. Motion by Mr.
Nagie and seconded by Mr. Kozlowski to appoint Mr. Abuchowski as Chairman. Being no further nominations, the board voted
unanimously in favor of Mr. Abuchowski.
Mr. Abuchowski took over as
Chairman at this time.
PRESENTATION OF MINUTES:
Motion by Mr. Nagie and
seconded by Mr. Perry to approve the minutes as presented. Unanimously approved.
RESOLUTION:
Kenneth Secor Block
#65
Appeal
Motion by Mr. Kozlowski and
seconded by Mr. Perry to approve the resolution for the appeal as presented.
ROLL CALL Yes:
Mr. Kozlowski Absent: Mr. Machauer Abstain: Mr. Nagie
No: 0 Mr. Perry Mr. MacQueen Mr. Eberle
Mr. Abuchowski Mr. Terzuolo
PRESENTATION OF BILLS:
a. John Gallina, Esq. $ 210.00 – Meeting
$ 157.50 – Escrow – (Secor)
b. Banisch Associates $ 698.70 -
Escrow (Pfister)
c. Court Stenographer $ 200.00 – Meeting
Total:
$1,266.20
Ms. Glashoff noted the bill
from the Agenda Addendum needs to be added to the total. Attorney Gallina for $157.50 Escrow for Secor. This brings the total to $1,266.20. Motion by Mr.
Nagie and seconded by Mr. Perry to approve the bills with the new total. Unanimously approved.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Ms. Glashoff stated that all
the correspondence was handed out to everyone before the meeting.
Page 2
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Paul Pfister Block
#66
71 Forge Hill Road Forge
Hill road RC 7½
Glen Gardner, N.J. 08826
CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING Use Variance for Helistop
Section
18-2.1a.p
Attorney Gruenberg was
present along with the applicant to proceed with the public hearing. Attorney Gruenberg addressed the letter that
was circulated amongst the neighbors from Sandy Phelps date
Attorney Gruenberg informed
the board that he has two expert witnesses for this evening. The first one is Veterinarian Katrina Alger
from
Attorney Gruenberg asked if
there had been any related problems with the Alpacas in relationship to Mr.
Pfister’s helicopter. Ms. Alger answered
no. Ms. Alger stated that her concern
with the helicopter would be with wind displacement when the aircraft is flying
very low. Ms. Alger said she was under
the impression that helicopters do not have a large area of wind displacement
with things moving around which would be the biggest issue. She did not feel that noise would be an issue
as long as Mr. Pfister had a sufficient warm-up time of 5-10 minutes. Attorney Gruenberg stated that wind
displacement would only occur near the ground where the helicopter was. At the conclusion of Ms. Alger’s testimony,
Chairman Abuchowski asked for questions from the board. Mr. Eberle asked if her testimony was based
on personal history or studies. Ms.
Alger stated she did a literature search to see if there was any history of
animals and issues with helicopters or aircraft in general. She was not able to find anything that
reports any real issues with it. Mr.
Nagie asked if they use helicopters to round up horses out west. Ms. Alger answered yes and they also use them
for rescue operations. R. Nagie asked, doesn’t the noise move the horses? They have used helicopters for rescue of
horses and they are not scared per Ms. Alger.
They are raised from canyons when they have been trapped. With herding they are moved by the wind
displacement and noise. Horses are also
herded by dogs and people on horseback. Mr. Nagie asked if cattle are affected by
a helicopter. Ms. Alger stated that she
does not have a lot of experience regarding herding in the west but it is a
technique that is used. If they had
problems with a lot of injuries they would not be using helicopters. Mr. Perry asked if at the airports she
referred to if they had helicopters or just small planes. Ms. Alger answered just small planes. Would a small plane make more noise than a
helicopter or does it depend on the plane.
Ms. Alger answered it all depends on the engine. Mr. Abuchowski noted that helicopters are
used for herding horses, cattle, sheep just about any animal all over the
world.
Being no further questions
from the board, Chairman Abuchowski opened the hearing to the public for
questions of the witness. The following
people asked many questions: Steve O’Malley, Esq., Michele Smego and Arthur
Bannon.
Attorney Gruenberg introduced
his next witness Planner Nancy Weaver-Smith partner in the firm of John Silo
Jr. Associates in
Page 3
Planner Weaver stated the
current use on the property is farm/agriculture which is a permitted use in the
R5 zone. The applicant is purposing this
as an accessory use. The helicopter will
be used for the farming activities. On
the Satellite photo it shows approximately where the helipad is located. Planner Weaver reviewed for the board the
locations and distances from the helipad to all structures surrounding the
property. Planner Weaver noted there is
a short warm-up before leaving the site.
Planner Weaver reference
Section 18-3.10 of the ordinance that refers to the “Right to Farm”. This helicopter will be used for farm use
along with the Alpaca farming business.
All farming uses have noise.
Example: tractors, seeders,
mowers, helicopters, airplanes and hay machines. This helicopter will be used for transporting
back and forth using as a means of travel.
Ms. Pfister will be using the helicopter for traveling to and from shows
and meetings. Planner Weaver noted that
the helicopter will not be used for herding of Alpacas. Attorney Gruenberg noted that certain
agricultural uses do use helicopters as a tool on the farm. The concern here is for noise per Planner Weaver
and she read Section 18-3.10, “It is hereby determined that whatever nuisance
may be caused to others by these uses and activities is more than offset by the
benefits from farming to the neighborhood community and society in general by
preservation of open space, the beauty of the countryside and clean air. The preservation and continuance of farming
operations in
Attorney Gruenberg asked
Planner Weaver about the types of agricultural uses that we are discussing in
terms of other equipment used on a farm, such as tractors, plows, combines
etc. Planner Weaver stated that tractors
are on the list and are at 90 decimals which is in the same range as a
helicopter hovering. Attorney Gruenberg
asked how a flight path is determined.
The FAA has to approve all flight paths.
Attorney Gruenberg asked in terms of a helicopter being used as an
agricultural use would a use variance be needed. Planner Weaver said no, if it is used as an
accessory use, it would not need a use variance and the helicopter is going to
be used as an accessory use for the Alpaca farm. Farmers today use all types of new
equipment. Attorney Gruenberg asked if
there was case law regarding helicopter use as a business use. Planner Weaver answered yes. Attorney Gruenberg noted that the applicant
has applied for a use variance in the event the board does not agreed that the
helicopter is an accessory use for the farm and asked Planner Weaver what the
special reasons are for granting a use variance? Planner Weaver stated the applicant has to
prove the positive and negative criteria and there are some special reasons in
this case. The positive criteria being
that planning benefits outweigh the detriment and the variance would advance
one or more goals of the municipality or the Municipal Land Use Law. In this instance, in accordance with the
MLUL the goal that this use would encourage
Page 4
would be: a. to encourage a
municipal guide, action to guide, appropriate use or development of all lands
in the state in a manner that would promote public health, safety and general
welfare, b. to provide sufficient state in appropriate locations for a variety
of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses in
open space for public and private in respect to the environmental requirements
in order to meet all the needs of New Jersey.
The Township Ordinance is specific in the “Right to Farm Ordinance”.
Planner Weaver stated that
the applicant is willing to limit the use from
When the
board reconvened at
It was noted that there was a
Helistop over on
Planner Bolan asked if they
had looked at the Master Plan. Planner Weaver
answered that she had reviewed the Master Plan.
Planner Bolan asked if she had looked at the objectives of the Master
Plan and if she found anything that stated a Helistop in a residential zone was
a good use. Planner Weaver stated that
she did not found anything in the Master Plan that supported having Helistops
in residential zones. Planner Bolan
asked if she had looked at the guiding principals of the Master Plan. Planner Weaver stated yes and the Master Plan
did not say it would allow or welcome a Heliport. Planner Bolan quoted the Master Plan stating:
“
Page 5
environment secure from intrusion by uses not directly related to
residential and agricultural pursuits”.
Planner Weaver stated the applicant is in the Rural Agricultural
Zone. Planner Bolan asked if she looked
at the rationale behind the Zoning and Master Plan in the Township. Planner Weaver said that the zoning ordinance
specifically states that it is determined that whatever nuisance that can be
caused by these uses more than offsets the benefits to the community for these
farming activities generating a slight noise.
Attorney Gruenberg did not agree with Planner Bolan’s characterization
because Planner Weaver’s testimony was under other equipment and it encompassed
to include helicopters under these circumstances. Planner Bolan stated that this helicopter is
not being used to do anything on this farm.
It is a convenience aspect.
Attorney Gruenberg objected stating that the testimony has been that it
is a promotion tool. It will be used to
market the product and to take Ms. Pfister to different events where she can
judge and promote her products which are an extension of the agricultural use.
Planner Bolan asked where the
closest dwelling was located. Planner Weaver
stated approximately 750’. Planner Bolan
asked why this site was particularly suitable for this use. Planner Weaver stated it is in proximity to
other farms and the open space. Planner
Bolan referred the ordinances and asked if Planner Weaver understand why the R5
zone was zoned R5. The reason why the
boundary for the RC zone was drawn around the R5 was to acknowledge the
residential development in the R5 that has taken place. Planner Bolan referred to the Master Plan
which states: “The R-5 District is
designed to recognize those areas of the Township which have largely developed
under the 5-acre zoning that has prevailed in the Township”. Planner Weaver stated that the 5-acre is the
minimum with many tracts that are very large that are still left in the R5. At this time Attorney Gallina asked if there
testimony is that this is an accessory use, that it is customary and
incidental. Planner Weaver answered
yes. Attorney Gallina asked how common is a Helistop on a residential farm in
Chairman Abuchowski stated
that Ron Beam former Lebanon Township Mayor who lived on
Chairman Abuchowski stated
before opening the hearing to the public announced that we will be adjourning
at
Page 6
does not wish to have a helipad. Planner Weaver answered not necessarily since
she does not know the particulars of the case. During the lengthy questions by Attorney
O’Malley, Attorney Gruenberg interjected stating Attorney O’Malley was being
argumentative. At the conclusion of the questions by Attorney
O’Malley, the following people asked questions of Planner Weaver: Andrew Pierro, Tom Burrell, Arthur Bannon.
At the conclusion of the
questions from the public, Attorney Gruenberg asked for a continuance
date. Ms. Glashoff offered July 26th
or August 23rd. Attorney
Gruenberg requested the August 23rd date. Attorney Gallina asked Attorney Gruenberg for
an extension of time. Ms. Glashoff asked
to extend the time to August 30th.
Attorney Gruenberg agreed.
Attorney Gallina announced that this hearing will be carried to August
23rd at
Being no further business to
come before the board, nor comments from the public,
motion by Mr. Nagie and seconded by Mr. Perry to adjourn the meeting at
_______________________________________
CHAIRMAN ABE ABUCHOWSKI
___________________________________________
GAIL W. GLASHOFF, BOARD SECRETARY