Sherry
Hoffer
Best way to judge zoning
decision is to come and see
Guest Column
Sherry
Hoffer
Best way to judge zoning
decision is to come and see
I have attempted over the past several weeks to let those who favor their names in the newspaper take time to pontificate their political views for what they claim to be the betterment of Marlboro. But what are the truths? I am concerned that the average Marlboro resident who doesn’t have the time to attend public meetings believes only what they read in the newspaper.
While I will not take your time with explaining the legal process by which the (zoning) board must base its decision upon, I assure you that there are very strict criteria set forth by the land use laws which this board applies to every application that comes before it.
Let’s look at what prompted this uproar. First the editor of the News Tran-script made the decision to print an article in which former Mayor Saul Hornik threatens to sue the board if they make a decision approving an application that hasn’t even been heard in its entirety yet.
Incidentally Mr. Rosman, the zoning board is a quasi-judicial body. Attempts to influence the board’s decisions prior to allowing them to hear the application is similar to jury tampering.
This is followed by the publishing of an editorial which is based on information from a former political informer who, by the way, never attended a meeting to actually know what was going on. As you weren’t present at any of the meetings either, Mr. Editor, you must place great faith in the honesty and integrity of your former political friend’s uninformed opinion.
Next, you, as the editor, print a mean-spirited letter from former Councilman (Thomas) Broderick in which he comments on "facts" he had gleaned from your infamous editorial. Did Mr. Broderick attend any of the hearings on this application? Did he take time out of his busy schedule or from his Republican county appointed job to offer any comment at the meeting? How does he manage to find so much wrong and spout so much indignation when, in fact, he wasn’t present at any of the hearings?
And yet, Mr. Broderick found no fault with his own actions when he voted "absent" as a councilman while sitting on the dais; exactly what are his motivations?
Moving on to the "letters" that the editor chose to print in the paper, I did recognize one name of a man who was present at the hearings. This concerned neighboring Tennent Road resident never stated that he objected to the application, but merely expressed his concerns about how much it would cost him to connect with the sewer that was being proposed as part of the application or would the builder do it.
A perfect example of the NIMBY attitude expressed by individuals who don’t care what the boards allow elsewhere in town as long as it’s "Not In My Backyard," this resident also stated in his letter that he didn’t want the strip mall that had been proposed on the exact same lot as this proposed 35-house development.
Guess what pal? The strip mall is a permitted use in the C-2 zone. But I wonder if you would still be writing letters to the editor if the Planning Board had permitted the mall to go in? While no one from the public (there were only three present) did in fact object to the application, there was one resident who did express his being in favor of the application.
Another "Letter to the Editor" came from a woman who actually does attend Township Council meetings and should be commended for that. It’s hard to take away time from your family to show concern for your town, but this woman’s time would have been better spent had she attended even one of the hearings in order to get her facts straight before expressing her comments.
Unfortunately, she did not attend even one of the hearings for this (Tennent Estates) application and yet, in her letter of Feb. 5, this resident stated that the board has agreed to concessions allowing the builder to make a $200,000 COAH (Council On Affor-dable Housing) contribution. Had she been present at the hearing, this lady would know that no such decision was made. This was a site plan issue to be discussed at a later date.
I don’t understand why so much attention has been given by the editor of this paper to this one decision of the zoning board. By allowing a 35-house subdivision, the balance of the C-2 zone will be opened up to the neighborhood commercial uses as a pump station will now be available for hook-up to sewer.
Your paper hasn’t expressed any concern for a 500-home subdivision proposed to the Old Bridge zoning board. This by itself makes me question your motives.
Anyone is free to sue the board over its decision, but please remember that it is tax dollars that must defend the suit. Any interested party should take time to carefully review each application and consult with their attorney to review the application and the platforms the board has taken.
Please know that the Zoning Board of Adjustment has always taken into consideration the welfare of all of Marlboro’s citizens concerning the environment, town beautification, junkyards and the welfare of the citizens during the review of every single application.
The zoning board holds its meetings on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month and often there are additional or "special" meetings that are also advertised in the newspaper and notices of the meetings are sent out to everyone within 200 feet of the site in question. Anyone is welcome to attend the meetings, and your input is welcome and valuable to our decision-making.
Please do not base your opinion on what is represented in a factless, baseless editorial or rumors from others. If you are interested in the truth, come to the meetings and see for yourself.
Sherry Hoffer is the chairwoman of the Marlboro Zoning Board of Adjustment