BOROUGH OF GLEN GARDNER
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
Vice Chairman Shawn Damboise called the regular scheduled meeting of the Glen
Gardner Planning Board to order at 7:33 pm. The meeting was duly noticed.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Meg Cox, Shawn Damboise, Michael Gronau,
Mark Hall, Mayor Stanley Kovach, Sara
Miniman, Joe Tapp, Jason Yard.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Tom Grochowicz, Georgeann Hitzel.
PROFESSIONALS PRESENT:
Attorney Peter Jost, Elizabeth McKenzie,
Attorney William Shurts, Attorney Walter
Wilson, Jackie Klapp (court stenographer).
OTHERS PRESENT:
Gregory DeStefano, Rene Stouffer, Bill Clawson,
Jennifer Peterson, Larry Vuz, Donna Sharkey
and other residents of Carol Court, Tim Morris
of NJ Land Conservation Foundation.
A motion to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2012 reorganization, regular and
executive session meetings was made by Damboise and seconded by Hall. Vote: Ayes:
Cox, Damboise, Gronau, Hall, Kovach, Miniman,Tapp. Abstain: Yard. No nays.
Motion carried.
CORRESPONDENCE:
For Board’s Information: NJ Planner December 2011.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Block 9, Lot 1.05, Carol Court, Owner Gregory DeStefano,
Public Hearing re: Deed Restriction
At this time Mayor Kovach and Councilman Gronau recused themselves from the Board.
Mr. DeStefano owns Block 9, Lot 1.05 a 19.94 acre deed restricted lot. He would like the
deed restriction rescinded in order to allow a single family home. Residential use is not
permitted as per deed restriction, farming is permitted. He filed a complaint against the
Borough Planning Board & Borough Council in the Superior Court of NJ Chancery
Division to Quiet Title. The Judge asked for the Planning Board to conduct a fact finding
2
hearing. The Board can offer a non-binding recommendation afterwards. The Judge will
make the final decision. A transcript of tonight’s meeting will be prepared by court
stenographer Jackie Klapp. Municipal Attorney Peter Jost was present on behalf of the
Borough Council.
An Application, including copies of consent order, public notice, written
statement/addendum, 1982 signed copy of deed, etc. was filed by Attorney Walter
Wilson on behalf of Mr. DeStefano. Attorney Shurts stated that adequate notice has been
provided to property owners within 200 feet, all property owners on Carol Court and the
Hunterdon County Democrat. The Application packet was marked as Exhibit A-1,
Affidavit of Service, Exhibit A-2, Proof of Publication in Democrat, Exhibit A-3, copy of
Final Plat of Hilltop Lacor, Inc., Exhibit A-4.
Attorney Shurts went over history of original subdivision. In 1982, Benjamin & Margaret
Kulick owned Block 9, Lots 1.02 & 1.05, approx. 28 acres. Property was conveyed to
Lacor Inc. who applied for site plan & subdivision approval to create 14 building lots, an
open space area & lot for Glen Gardner Water Company. The Planning Board voted to
allow the open space area to be conveyed to Mr. Kulick with restrictions being placed on
use of the land.
Attorney Walter Wilson’s Testimony: Gregory DeStefano, owner of Block 9, Lot 1.05,
resides at 17 Whitebirch Park Hampton, NJ was sworn in by Attorney Shurts. Mr.
DeStefano has owned the Carol Court property for approx. 10 years. He uses it in
conjunction with his farm stand on Rt. 31, Lebanon Township. He grows flowers in
greenhouse, raises chickens & beef cows, plows & grows vegetables & fall mums on 7
acres. All that is grown is sold at farm stand in addition to other products. He stated he
has many problems including cows getting loose, power outages which hurt plants in
greenhouses, security; feels property could be managed more efficiently if he lived on
site. Attorney Wilson stated according to Hunterdon County Agricultural Board it is a
common practice to have a farmhouse on property and it is a provision of Glen Gardner
zoning to allow a farmhouse. He also stated according to Glen Gardner Master Plan this
land is considered the most fertile farm soil. Mr. DeStefano just wants to live on property
he farms.
Questions from the Board:
Meg Cox: Has Mr. DeStefano ever considered purchasing a house to live in on Carol
Court, installing a better security system, surveillance cameras, better fencing for
animals, a generator for power outages, how often cows have been loose in past 10 years?
His response was no to most of the questions except he has a propane generator, cows
last loose about 4 weeks ago. They have done damage to property on Carol Court which
he has repaired with topsoil and grass seed.
Joe Tapp: Would house be for Mr. DeStefano’s own personal use or for farm workers?
He stated it would be just for himself and son, possibly daughter later on. Attorney
Wilson commented a farmhand living on property is allowed in Boro ordinance. Also
3
asked was what benefit this would be to the Boro. He stated taxes but basically he is here
for his own personal benefit.
Sara Miniman: How many hours is he on property, how long is his commute and is living
on property a matter of convenience or necessity? He is on property 2-3 hours a day, 10
hours in summer when planting; commute is 1 mile from home, longer if he is coming
from other locations. He will call someone to help if animals get out and he is not close
by. He stated it would be both, beneficial and a necessity, to live on site to feed animals,
water plants, brush hog, etc.
Shawn Damboise: Commented there is an open space area on his street, if this were
changed it affects the residents of the street.
Attorney Wilson stated this is a unique situation; this is not really an open space lot since
farm structures can be placed on property. He feels Planning Board was ahead of its time
by designating area restricted to farm use, creating an early farmland preservation area.
Attorney Jost strongly disagreed that this is a farmland preservation case stating it is open
space case. This discussion continued with more questions regarding property value,
topography, placement of house, etc.
Attorney Peter Jost’s Questions: A series of questions relating to Mr. DeStefano’s
knowledge of the permitted use of the property when purchasing were asked. Mr.
DeStefano stated he was aware of the deed restrictions and that he could not build a
house on the property. Restrictions #3 & #4 on the original 1982 deed were read:
#3. There shall be no private or public dumping of trash, garbage or refuse in the
permanent open space.
#4. There shall be no residential building, no commercial buildings and no industrial uses
or industrial buildings in the permanent open space.
Questions from the Public:
Donna Sharkey, 13 Carol Court, asked why building house on property is a necessity,
understands convenience. Mr. DeStefano stated it would be convenient, not necessary.
Larry Vuz, 1 Carol Court, stated Mr. DeStefano purchased a deed restricted lot at a lower
price than if it was a residential building lot. Also, commented on loose livestock and
gate issues, police calls relating to drinking and drug use on property.
Tim Morris, 101 Bank Street Califon, NJ representing NJ Land Conservation Foundation,
asked about the intent of the deed restriction, # 5 in the deed restriction states permanent
open space shall remain open space. Attorney Wilson referred back to Master Plan, said
area is private, not public, Mr. Morris stated there are many open space areas with no
public access and that farmland preservation easements do not always allow residents, if
a residential use is to be permitted at a future date the restriction will specify that.
8:55PM: 5 minute break
9PM: Meeting convened
4
Attorney Shurts swore in Borough Planner, Elizabeth McKenzie, 9 Main Street,
Flemington, NJ. Ms. McKenzie listed her education and credentials. Ms. McKenzie
reviewed materials submitted and the origins of the cluster subdivision. The R2-C zone
allowed clustering if there was an area designated as open space. A number of variances
were granted to allow smaller lots, developer got 2 extra lots. In reviewing the minutes,
resolution and deed restriction, farming was allowed to ensure the maintenance of the
open space, eliminating the need for maintenance by a homeowners association. Ms.
McKenzie stated that the definition of farm in the Boro ordinance is not applicable to this
case. “Farming” was allowed as an agricultural use which is not the same as having a
“farm”. The area was approved as an open space lot not a farm lot, farming was allowed
in this particular case. The purpose of the open space is clear from original subdivision
approval. She is concerned that from a zoning perspective removing the deed restriction
would set a bad precedent, (deed restricted parcel, deeded open space, where developers
rights were already used). In her opinion it would undermine the intention of the Land
Use Law & Zoning Plan for Glen Gardner and would not be a good situation from a
planning perspective, thinks farming was a way to maintain property. If there is a future
owner, farm use may not be continued, may end up as a residential use which is not the
intent of the ordinance or original subdivision. Ms. McKenzie stated it is clear that there
are good reasons deed restriction should remain intact.
A discussion ensued between Ms. McKenzie and Attorney Wilson as to the intention of
the open space. The original approvals, meeting minutes, resolutions, etc. were discussed
at length. Resolution with cover letter from Peter Jost dated 6/9/82 marked as Exhibit PB1, letter dated 6/28/82, Baucom to Stover, marked as Exhibit PB-2, complete set of
Planning Board minutes, 12 sheets in total, dated 2/9/82 (4 pages), 3/9/82 (3 pages),
4/13/82 (1 page), 5/11/82 (2 pages), 6/9/82 (1 page), 9/14/82 (1 page) marked as Exhibit
PB-3, Letters dated 10/22/82 Dorfman, Attorney for Lacor and 10/28/82 Baucom to
Stover marked as Exhibit PB-4. Attorney Wilson stated he does not object to anything
else being submitted to the Court. Attorney Jost cited that in 2/9/82 Planning Board
minutes it references Mr. Leher’s earlier appearance at a previous meeting. He felt earlier
minutes should be included in fact finding.
Questions from the Public: None offered.
Comments from Attorney Jost: Ms. McKenzie presented Boro in accord with her
analysis.
Comments from the Public:
Attorney Shurts swore in Timothy Morris, 101 Bank Street Califon, NJ representing NJ
Land Conservation Foundation, a private non-profit organization, in operation for 50
years. The foundation manages parkland, easements, etc. He read into record letter
addressed to Board Secretary re: fact finding hearing, price of property, etc. Mr. Morris
explained restriction removal should have DEP approval as part of NJ Conservation
Restriction & Historic Preservation Act if property is listed in Boro’s green acres open
space inventory. In re: to analogies made to Farmland Preservation Program, he doesn’t
5
feel this is a unique case, all cases have differing language, there are privately owned lots
that do not provide public use. Re: Easements the Farmland Development & Retention
Act: if residential site is allowed it says so, there are other preserved farmland easements
that do not allow for a farmhouse. Questions from Public to Mr. Morris: None offered.
Donna Sharkey: Asked what will happen next, she does not want house to be built.
Attorney Shurts explained he will make a recommendation on behalf of Board.
Mark Prakopcyk, 20 Glen Manor Drive, who could not be present at meeting, submitted a
letter opposing the construction of a residential dwelling on Block 9, Lot 1.05. Attorney
Shurts read letter into record and marked as Exhibit 0-1.
Final Statements:
In summary: Attorney Wilson offered persuasive comments stating that this is a
reasonable request; they don’t believe there is a negative to a house being built. The
other restrictions can remain. The process followed in 1982 would not be the same today,
doesn’t feel restriction is appropriate. He said purpose of restriction was vague in stating
“except farming”. Feels it is appropriate to allow a farm property while maintaining
buffers, slopes, etc. Farmer should be allowed to farm and live on the property with other
restrictions still in place. The improvement will be taxed which would be a benefit.
In summary: Attorney Jost stated Mr. DeStefano seems like an honest, hardworking man,
this is not about him personally. He knew when he bought property what he was buying.
To remove the restriction and allow a house to be built would affect the integrity of the
zoning clustering provisions that were relied on 30 years ago. Basic idea was that this
would be a permanent preserved open space. The intent was maintenance farming so
neither an association or Boro would have this responsibility. The restriction should be
maintained and a residence should not be allowed.
Attorney Shurts asked for direction from the Board to prepare a summary of facts. The
Board will review and adopt at next meeting and then it will be sent to Superior Court.
Attorney Wilson stated he had no problem with Attorney Shurts preparing summary.
Recommendations from the Board: Attorney Shurts stated this is optional, Board
members offered their recommendations as follows:
Sara Miniman: Agreed to uphold deed restriction as stated in original deed. Original
intent was open space.
Shawn Damboise: Stated he thinks the benefit to the public of maintaining the open space
outweighs the detriment to the landowner.
Meg Cox, Jason Yard, Mark Hall: All agreed with previous statements.
Joe Tapp: Not in favor, asking Board to change a legal document. Mr. DeStefano knew
restrictions. Said he was sorry to Mr. DeStefano.
6
Comments closed.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
As there was no further business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was
made by Hall and seconded by Damboise at 10:45 pm. Vote: All Ayes.
________________________
Judy Bass, Board Secretary