Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Another Springdell dispute

Dan Waltson can continue to use the barn on his Springdell property to store trucks and mowers for his lawn-care business and he can tear down a 40-year-old mobile home on the property, the West Marlborough Township Zoning Hearing Board decided after a three-hour hearing on Monday night.
Mr. Waltson had to appear before the board because the mixed business/residential use of his property would not be permitted under current zoning, but because it was used for business purposes before the zoning code was enacted, it is considered a "nonconforming use," and he needs permission to make any changes.
After granting the permission, the zoning board praised Mr. Waltson for making the renovations to his barn, although they noted that he really should have gotten a building permit first, and thanked him for improving his property so nicely, converting "a green ugly metal building to a building that is truly good looking" and an asset to the village, as board member Baz Powell put it.
Zoning board chairman Clayton Bright said Mr. Waltson's renovations did enlarge the barn's footprint slightly, but removing the trailer would represent "an equal exchange." 
Next-door neighbor Gus Brown, however, was on hand to object to Mr. Waltson's plans. He questioned him repeatedly about various improvements he had made to the property, entering into evidence aerial maps, photographs and even a real-estate listing sheet (Mr. Brown is a real-estate agent, and you may recognize the name as one of those Springdell residents who also objected to the Whip Tavern's operations).
I asked Mr. Brown after the hearing why he was opposing the project. He told me that he didn't object to the business use of the property at all, but there was stormwater runoff from Mr. Waltson's property onto his land, he had had issues with some of his previous tenants in the trailer, he was concerned that there might be two residences on the property and he didn't like the fact that he had made the improvements without a permit.

Mr. Waltson agreed to the zoning board's conditions that he would not enlarge his business, would not permit any outdoor storage, would not store any chemicals or fuel on the site, and would not install any additional exterior lights. He said his operations have minimal impact on the village: his employees show up at 7 a.m. during the lawn-mowing season and do not return until dusk. No customers come to the property, and the business is closed entirely during the winter.
The board also asked him to address Mr. Brown's runoff issue with the township's engineer. Mr. Waltson will also be allowed to convert the second floor of his barn into an apartment, but it can be occupied only after he removes the trailer.
At the beginning of the zoning hearing, board member Joseph Huston said he wanted to disclose three things: that Mr. Waltson had cut his lawn; that Mr. Brown is a friend and neighbor; and that Mr. Waltson's attorney, Neil Land, represented the Whip (Mr. Huston, like Mr. Brown, was another Springdell resident who battled the Whip). Mr. Huston said he believed he could put aside those issues and decide the matter impartially.
However, Mr. Land asked Mr. Huston to recuse himself because of his friendship with Mr. Brown. Mr. Huston said he would just as soon go home and have dinner with his wife, and the zoning board chairman, Clayton Bright, agreed that perhaps that would be best.
The hearing was over at 10:15 p.m.; on the way out, one audience member commented that the hearing had probably been more entertaining than watching the Eagles game.

1 comment:

  1. It is sad that Mr.Waltson had to go to the trouble and expense of hiring an attorney. At his first presentation to the Zoning Hearing Board I felt he was railroaded. The issue should have been handled by the township engineer when he was first contacted by Mr.Waltson. Others have complained publically about this engineer not getting back to them in a timely fashion. The Zoning Hearing Board had no foundation to issue their first denial, which they had to vacate for their current action.

    ReplyDelete