on Shallowbrook Rd. farm
By jeanette M. eng
Staff Writer
MARLBORO — Residents of Shallowbrook Road can rest easy now, knowing there will be no sheep farm or foresting business in their back yards.
At the Jan. 21 meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, board members unanimously rejected a request for a use variance to allow a farm use in a Land Conservation zone.
According to Marlboro’s master plan, a farm is only a permitted use in the Agricultural/Land Conservation and Airport Hazard zones.
The applicant, Dr. Joseph P. Arno, wanted to start a farm on his 7.8-acre property on Shallowbrook Road, which is off Igoe Road in the northeast section of Marlboro. In testimony before the board, Arno outlined business plans for the raising of sheep for wool sale and the foresting of trees.
"Each of my sheep will yield about 10 pounds of wool a year," Arno said. "Then I will send the wool to a mill to manufacture them into king-sized blankets."
According to Arno, the wool blankets would have been sold for between $180 and $220 each. His forestry plans included selling cords of wood to a third party company.
Upon board member Deborah Hoffman’s request to see a written business plan, Arno could not produce one.
"My business plan depends on how many sheep I have and how many cords of wood I sell," the applicant said.
Arno submitted a survey of his property, dividing his 7.8 acres in accordance with his plan; 2.77 acres was designated as the home site, 1.2 acres was designated as the pasture and 3.77 acres was designated as the forest.
As Arno continued to describe his plans, board members began to question the consistency and credibility of Arno’s statements.
"I have a problem with this," Chairwoman Sherry Hoffer said. "When we asked you ‘Do you have the intention of building on your property?’ you said ‘absolutely not.’ And when we asked you ‘Do you plan to raise animals?’ you said ‘no, no.’ "
Hoffer was referring to testimony made to the board during a previous hearing for a fence around Arno’s property.
"People change their views; they don’t remain static," Arno said. "Life goes on. What I said before was approved. I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to keep bringing this up and throwing it in my face."
Board members believed, however, that past testimony on the same piece of property did have relevance to the application.
"We have every right to refer to past testimony," board member Steven Sukel said. "We approved your application [for a fence] on the contingency of your testimony."
"Perhaps … if you had told us that you were planning on raising sheep, we wouldn’t have approved your fence," Hoffer said.
Arno confirmed that he had filed an application for farmland assessment as of Aug. 1, 2002. If farmland assessment was granted (a two-year process), significantly lower property taxes would be assessed the homeowner on an annual basis.
At the Nov. 13 hearing for the application, attorney James E. Collins, representing Arno, introduced the Right to Farm Act which he said would put Arno’s application under county jurisdiction and allow him to farm without requiring the involvement of the zoning board.
According to information presented at that time, the qualifications for the Right to Farm Act include producing a minimum yearly income of $2,500 from farming activity and the dedication of at least 5 acres to farming activity.
Board members determined that the Right to Farm Act did not apply to the application before them since Arno did not currently meet the requirements.
"I conclude that we have jurisdiction on this matter and we must treat this as a municipal land use case of a request for a use variance," Hoffer said.
During the public hearing on Arno’s application, neighbors Robert Rudman, April Rudman, Bert Hill, Rekha Khanna and Teja Anderson all objected to the plan.
"I didn’t move in [to Shallowbrook Road] thinking that my neighbor would start moving sheep in," Robert Rudman said.
Anderson, after testifying to having experience with sheep, challenged Arno’s knowledge on the subject.
"I know what a sheep shearing farm should look like and there’s no possible way he could do this," Anderson said. "I don’t think that this is a proper home for sheep and I feel bad for them [the sheep]."
Hill made some observations about the possible repercussions of such an approval.
"It is important for the board to reject this application [not only] because it will not benefit the neighborhood," Hill said. "If this is approved, it will open up a whole new can of worms. Then any one of us can ask for the same thing."
In closing statements to the board, Collins reiterated that the application possessed a unique lot size, that the house is 290 feet from the street and that a tree-lined buffer was planned to hide the farming activity.
"I see very positive aspects in this application," Collins said. "I see no negative."
In workshop, the board members commented on a unanimous lack of support for the application.
"You have presented no engineer, no planner and no expert testimony for us to question the validity of the [sheep] facts," Hoffer said. "The negative criteria grossly outweighs the positive criteria. I would support a negative vote on this request."
"This is clearly not an inherently beneficial or appropriate use … these upscale homes are $800,000 to million dollar homes," Sukel said. "We have no credible testimony on record that supports the criteria of the applicant meeting the burden of proving his application."
Board members Joseph Castalucci, Gerald Newman, Grover Burrows, Sukel, Hoffer and Hoffman voted against the application. Vice Chairman Eric Menaker abstained because he was not present for part of the testimony.
Arno will receive a 30-day notice directing him to remove the two sheep he currently has on his property.