VILLAS – With about 150 residents packing the meeting room to voice their opposition to a proposed boat storage yard in their neighborhood, the Lower Township Zoning Board of Adjustment rejected the plan, unanimously.
The applicants, Joe and Eileen Baker, own and operate Hinch’s Marina along with other businesses. Joe Baker told the board at its April 3 meeting that he acquired the 7.5-acre parcel in the Tranquility neighborhood with the intention of storing 30 to 50 boats there in the off-season.
However, the sheer amount of opposition to the project apparently weighed heavily on the board’s decision to deny the proposal, as some of the members pointed out the crowd presence.
“With the outpouring of opposition I can’t in good conscience support this application,” board Chairman James Hanson said.
Board member Robert Sweeten said, “This could work, but in over 20 years this is the most packed room I’ve ever seen.”
Of the residents who spoke, several said that the board needed to respect the zoning laws on the books, and to respect the wishes of the approximately 275 residents of the neighborhood.
Many said the application, if approved, would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood, saying such a facility would be a source of noise, litter, noxious fumes and, above all, increased traffic. Several said they thought the development of 1 acre for commercial use would ultimately lead to more commercial development of what is now a residential zone.
All seven Zoning Board members voted no on the application submitted by Baker, an alternate board member. Some in the public suggested the board would show favoritism to a fellow board member, a claim that was denied by board members.
Board member Ernie Utsch, who operates Utsch’s Marina, said he was not only a fellow board member with Baker, but a friend. Utsch noted that about 25 members of the public spoke against the application and only one in favor.
The application sought preliminary and final approval for a use variance for the parcel, which is currently zoned R-3 residential. Granting the variance would have allowed the Bakers to use the property for a commercial purpose.
Their attorney, Andrew Catanese, and his engineer, Joe Maffei, said their client’s use would only affect 1 acre, about 13%, of the 7.5-acre parcel. The development would include a 50-by-60-foot, two-story maintenance building that one board member described as “postage-stamp sized.”
Catanese, also noting the large presence of residents from the Tranquility neighborhood, said there would be a substantial wooded area between the proposed operation and the residential neighborhood.
“The majority (of the parcel) will remain green space,” he said.
He told the board there would be 217 feet of wooded space between the actual boat yard and Portsmouth Road, and that the applicant would add to the vegetative buffer. The applicant also said the property would not be used to a great degree except in the fall, when boats go into storage, and the spring, when they are taken out. Baker said he planned to transport boats between the property and his marina only.
The original plans included placing the main entry/exit on Portsmouth Road. Trucks hauling boats of up to about 40 feet in length would turn off Route 109, travel down Tranquility Drive and turn onto Portsmouth Road to get to the entrance.
Maffei testified that an entrance on the neighborhood street would be safer than creating an entrance on Route 109, which is heavily traveled. The plans included an emergency access off Route 109, and before the application was denied, the plan was amended to make Route 109 the primary access point to the property.
Benjamin Ojserkis, an attorney hired by a resident of the neighborhood, told the board that “zoning by variance” was frowned upon by the state. He said the standard for granting a use variance was high, and that the applicant had not met the standard.
Ojserkis also did not accept the applicant’s claim that the variance should be granted because of a shortage of boat storage facilities in the area. Maffei said there were about three places where boats could be stored because others had closed and the remaining sites were full.
But Ojserkis said the applicant had not proven that there was no other location where he could store boats, only that he owned this particular parcel.
He also said that the Lower Township master plan did not mention boat storage facilities, so the application would not advance the master plan.
Contact the reporter, Christopher South, at csouth@cmcherald.com or 609-886-8600, ext. 128.
