Application Pulled Again: Let’s Take a Look at the Holmdel Planner’s Response
The planner’s response is available here: https://holmdeltownship.com/DocumentCenter/View/5542/ZBA2023-10-Andrews-Mgmt-Planners-Review-07-12-24. Let’s take a look at some of the comments in detail… (my emphasis in bold)
The Holmdel Planner quotes the Development Regulations: ‘The purpose of the R-40A Zone is “to zone existing low density areas in a manner consistent with existing development in the R-40A District,” as stated in the Development Regulations. In addition, “[t]he design standards are intended to provide flexibility in design so that the vistas and views in the remaining undeveloped areas will be preserved as much as possible by locating homes over crests of hills, behind existing trees, or in other locations that will minimize the appearance of development.”’ The Township requires development be consistent with other properties in the district and not disturb the appearance of the planning district. The proposed commercial office part is specifically prohibited, inconsistent with the existing development (single family homes and farmland), and in no way “minimizes the appearance of development” by providing office buildings that tower ten feet over the required 35’ maximum height.
‘Per the MLUL, a “d” variance may be granted only “in particular cases for special reasons.” These “special reasons” for a use variance may include that (1) the use is inherently beneficial, (2) that the property owner would suffer undue hardship if compelled to use the property in conformity with the permitted uses in the zone, or (3) that the site is particularly suited for the use so as to promote the general welfare.’ An example of a use that is inherently beneficial is a church, school, municipal development, the proposed dementia center at Potter’s Farm etc. A private office development is not inherently beneficial to the Township, only to the developer. Furthermore, the owner (KIP 20 LLC, Andrews Management Group) will not suffer undue hardship because they have, of their own volition, decided to destroy the existing, compliant, use of the lot and attempt to replace it with a prohibited commercial development. That’s not “undue hardship,” that’s “rapacious development.” Finally, is the site particularly suited for the use? Holmdel Township has decided to allocate land near the Bayshore Hospital on Beers Street for medical office use. That is the Township’s definition of land that is particularly suited for medical offices, and it is zoned appropriately.
‘A “d(1)” variance applicant for a use that is not inherently beneficial (as is the case herein) is further required to address the “enhanced quality of proof” per Medici v. BPR Co. (107 NJ 1 [1987]): “the grant of a use variance is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance.” In accordance with this standard, the Board must consider whether the applicant has offered appropriate testimony to “reconcile” the fact that the proposed use is not contemplated for the R-40A District.’ The planner states plainly that this is not an inherently beneficial use, and so adjudicated precedent demands enhanced proof that the proposed usage is is consistent with intent and purpose of the master plan. The planner says no such proof is provided — simply because the usage is not consistent with the “intent and purpose” as outlined above. The planner states plainly that ‘the proposed use is not contemplated for the R-40A District.’
‘As with any variance, the applicant must satisfy the positive criteria (i.e., advance special reasons by demonstrating undue hardship or that the proposal will further the purposes of zoning) and the negative criteria (i.e., demonstrate that the granting of relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the zone plan or zoning ordinance).’ KIP 20/Andrews Management Group have provided no testimony to the fact that they are suffering undue hardship, because they are not, not that the proposal will further the purpose of the zoning, because it will not. They have provided no evidence that the development will not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor impair the zoning plan — because it will cause a detriment to the public good and also impair the zoning plan.
‘The applicant should provide testimony regarding the type of medical office user(s) being contemplated, including whether there will be in-patient or out-patient services, the need for laboratories, daytime versus overnight operations, the number of employees, etc. The applicant should also testify as to whether a specific medical office tenant(s) has been identified.’ KIP 20 LLC/Andrews Management Group have provided zero testimony regarding the specific usage they propose. Why? My guess is because they actually don’t have a realistic proposal other than the feeling that they should be allowed to exploit the public good for their own financial interests.
‘The applicant should provide testimony on potential traffic generation and parking impacts related to the proposed use.’ Again, this required testimony is not provided: I’m sure we can all imagine the potential impact of yet more traffic at the intersection of the Garden State Parkway and Red Hill Road — Sloan Kettering has, for years, had a dedicated exit lane provided by the Turnpike Authority, which, when coupled with the brevity of the route (directly across the road) manages to accommodate their traffic load. Extra traffic turning right at Red Hill Road is not accommodated for by the existing intersection, which is currently five lanes wide. KIP 20 LLC/Andrews Management Group did provide a traffic plan, but it was not for this proposed usage — and so not relevant.
‘Per §30-54, nonresidential development abutting residential development shall provide certain buffer areas, including but not limited to:
• A strip of land 20% of the average width and depth of the property shall be designated as a buffer area, to be contiguous with the residential property line.’
The proposed development plan may be accessed here: https://holmdeltownship.com/DocumentCenter/View/5517/ZBA2023-10-Andrews-Management-Variance-Plan-11624.
The image to the left shows my measurement of the 125-127 Red Hill Road site from Google Maps. I have used their measurement tools to render the outline of the lot. I measure the “average width” of the lot to be (200’ + 400’)/2 or 300’. Twenty percent of three hundred feet is 60’—and that is how large the buffer area needs to be to the surrounding residential/agricultural land. KIP 20 LLC/Andrews Management Group have allocated 50’ to the Garden State Parkway, and even then their buildings encroach upon that, and just twenty-five feet to the neighboring residential and agricultural land. Twenty-five is less than sixty, last time I checked. KIP 20 LLC/Andrews Management Group have decided to place two septic fields within that required buffer zone, right next to the potable water well that is used at our barns (the two historic buildings visible to passers by, and now the sole remaining remnants of the historic farmhouse that once existed on this site). This proposed “commercial” development is not even consistent with commercial usage rules!
We are grateful for your support in opposing this development, which is in gross violation of Zoning Rules and the Holmdel Master Plan, and seeks to convert residential/agricultural land, that has been farmed for generations and, probably, that is the only use it has had since Colonial Times, into an office park of no beneficial value to the Township merely to make a quick buck at the expense of generations of Holmdelians who chose to make this Township the place they wanted to live in.
