Final Fisher Hearing – Board of Adjustment Denies Water Pumping Variance
The Delaware Township Board of Adjustment voted 5-1 last night to deny the application for a “d” variance on the Fisher farm at Locktown-Sergeantsville Road. This brought to a close two years of hearings, which began January 10, 2008. Charlie Fisher, son of the owner Harriet Fisher, was seeking the variance to allow a commercial/industrial operation in an agricultural/residential zone. If the variance had been approved, Mr. Fisher would have operated a fleet of trucks from the site, delivering spring water and ground water to unspecified purchasers. The water diversion would have been 43,200 gallons per day, requiring nine trucks a day – six days a week.
Throughout the hearings Mr. Fisher and his attorney George Dilts compared the proposed new use, and its trucks, to the dairy farm that went out of business on the site over a decade ago, constantly referring to the operation as “water harvesting”. This was not an analogy that the public accepted: at the December 17 meeting, thirteen township residents spoke against the variance (only two residents spoke in favor), often mentioning that this operation, whatever it was to be called, was not farming. Mr. Dilts stressed that the new income from the water sales would help Mr. Fisher keep possession of the farm and maintain the buildings in a state of repair.
Attorney John Lanza represented Mr. Robert K. Hornby, the nearest neighbor to the Fisher farm and the objector in this case. Throughout the hearings Mr. Lanza focused on the added truck traffic that would be generated. Lanza stressed that this is a quality of life issue for Mr. Hornby, the neighbors, and for the entire Township.
After the attorneys’ summations, Board Attorney Steve Goodell asked the Board for a motion. Mr. Manley moved the application be approved; this was seconded and the Board discussed the case before voting.
Mr. Siecke at first said he thought the operation would not pose a substantial detriment to the public good.
Mr. Manley: But a lot of the neighbors do.
Mr. Warren: I look at the Master Plan goals – protection of natural resources, historic character, rural roads – and I think this goes against that. We heard testimony that this would require re-engineering the road; will that require widening?
Mr. Hitchcock: People have different opinions whether there would be a substantial detriment.
Ms. Dalgiewicz: I think the variance would certainly present a very creative challenge, to see that all the conditions are met.
(The Township’s planner, hydrogeologist and engineer had each submitted lists of conditions that from their professional perspectives would have to be met to protect the public interest. Attorney Lanza in his summation said there were a total of twenty three).
Mr. Manley: There will be (public) expense associated with that.
Mr. Siecke: I live on a farm and I know I would not like to see the character changed by having tank trucks in operation nearby.
Mr. Manley: But the farm would be preserved.
Mr. Siecke: But it could be preserved in other ways.
Mr. Manley: I am convinced that agriculture in New Jersey is in serious difficulty. This is an opportunity for a farming operation to get some revenue to continue its activity.
Mr. Warren: A neighbor pointed out that, with all god intentions, the property could be sold one day.
Mr. Manley: “Legislating from the bench” is unpopular, but I feel that we’re being asked to do just that. Our Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance are pretty clearly against this kind of operation. This is a major change. Should we be doing this, or should it be the Planning Board and Township Committee? I’m not sure this is our job.
Mr. Siecke: I don’t think this would have any benefit to the Township, does it?
Mr. Manley: It maintains the rural and agricultural look of the farm.
Mr. Siecke: That could be done more simply.
Mr. Warren: I’m not sure I get your point.
Mr. Manley: We’re being asked to approve a major change to the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. It’s not like we’re approving a barn that’s a little too high or a septic field that’s slightly outside of the building envelope, which are the sorts of things this Board of Adjustment usually deals with.
Mr. Emmons: Mike’s saying that it goes against the Zoning Ordinance and master Plan, not by a little, but by a lot.
The Board discussion continued along these lines for a few more minutes; when the discussion appeared to have covered everything, Board Attorney Goodell reminded the members that the motion under consideration was to approve the variance; the Board’s experts had suggested a list of conditions on any approval which the Board would have to consider separately; the motion should be amended to provide for discussion of these conditions. Mr. Manley amended his motion; this was seconded. The Board voted on a motion to approve the variance subject to conditions to be determined, five to one against, Manley voting against his own motion along with Emmons, Hitchcock, Siecke and Warren; the lone yes vote was Dalgiewicz.
Other posts by Gary Hinesley
Thank you.
It has been a very long process, these two years of hearings, and I am very glad they are over. Looking back on my posts about this issue, I am reminded of how hopeful I was at the beginning that this would somehow prove to be an equitable solution to the problem of trying to farm here in Hunterdon County. Obviously, my thoughts changed considerably on the subject, but I still hope that somehow places as special as the Fisher Farm can be saved, utilized and made to be profitable again.
I would love to see someone take up the challenge of farming that land — there seems to be a resurgance of interest in small, locally produced goods and I could only assume that someone would find the Fisher Farm ideally suited to an operation like that. I think of places like Gravity Hill Farm, the Honey Brook Farm CSA operated by the Stonybrook-Millstone Watershed Association, and many other small farms that have found a way to meet the needs of their local community as well as keep fertile, important soils in production.
I have all of the respect in the world for the members of the Board who obviously wrestled with this decision — it certainly wasn’t an easy one and I am very grateful that they chose to deny the variance. We have seen so many changes to the face of Delaware Township over the past few years (remember the beautiful pine trees that used to line Sergeantsville Rd?), and I am heartened by the fact that the Board decided to uphold the zoning. It is not easy to look a neighbor in the eye and say to him, “no, you cannot do what you want to do with your land.”, but the Board truly had the best interests of the Township at stake, and they voted for the greater good.
EEK! Rosemont-Ringoes Road… oh, for an edit option.
Laura is right. In a small town like ours, where we all know one another, it is difficult to disagree in an agreeable manner. Five members of the BOA had the fortitude to say “no” to their friend and neighbor.
I thank Mr. Hineseley for his belief in and support of a free press.