Residents still object to plan
Howell officials listen but make no comment because athletic center case is in court
BY TOYNETT HALL Staff Writer
Residents of Fairfield and Baker roads in Howell appeared before the Howell Township Council on April 22 with a petition signed by 200 neighbors who object to a proposal put forth by a developer who wants to build the Monmouth County Athletic Center near their homes.

A variance that would have permitted the development of the athletic center was denied by Howell Zoning Board of Adjustment on Dec. 3. The application required five affirmative votes and the motion received four affirmative votes.

The applicant filed an appeal of the board's decision in state Superior Court on Jan. 31.

Those who oppose the facility came to the council meeting seeking support for their position from the council. They want the council members to uphold the zoning board's decision.

Janice Romisoukas of Baker Road said, "The facility was a good idea; however, the site was not a great place for it. I live on a dirt road that runs alongside the property. My biggest concern was the traffic and noise that would emanate from the site. I don't want to hear balls hitting the side of the building."

Romisoukas is not pleased that the applicant is appealing the zoning board's decision, as is its right to do.

According to Romisoukas, to "start this whole thing over again is just too much." She said that the athletic center would negatively impact "not just people on Fairfield Road, but in the surrounding neighborhoods as well."

Resident Pauline Smith commented, saying, "Something like this athletic center would necessitate widening the road. At least several homes would lose frontage on their lots. This applicant has no regard" for residents. "The zoning board has made a good decision."

T.J. Coan, a principal of the group that proposed the athletic center, said the applicant did everything it could to comply with Howell's zoning rules and development regulations.

"We've been gentlemen and in return we got a raw deal. We are taxpayers in this town, too, and we have to spend tax money to fight our own appeal. We have been left no choice," Coan said. "We feel the property has more value than people in the town think. We are willing to pay the taxes. We are willing to invest. We don't want to sue the township."

Coan said that in an attempt to mitigate the situation, he would be willing to sit down with municipal officials to discuss a settlement or a possible change to the zoning in that area.

According to the minutes of the Dec. 3 zoning board meeting, board Chairman John Van Noy, who was in favor of the athletic center, said, "I think this is a fine application and I think quite frankly if we were to turn this down, I think a judge would overrule us and say we weren't being fair. I think we would have a serious problem with this application because they have been so accommodating."

According to the zoning board's resolution that memorialized the denial of the athletic center application, "From the inception of the case, the board was concerned with the impact such an extensive project would have on the otherwise rural nature of this part of Howell … specifically with traffic congestion."

Coan referred to a report that was prepared by Kenneth Kerr, the zoning board's engineer, and James Watson, the zoning board's traffic engineer, which stated that "the granting of the variance may reduce potentially dangerous traffic conditions and alleviate congestion."

Nevertheless, "The board did not find that the purposes of zoning would be served by the replacement of this facility at this location, given the rural nature of the area, and the presence of the nearby residences and farms," according to the resolution.

When the residents spoke about the athletic center at the April 22 council meeting, the members of the governing body listened to what they had to say, but refrained from commenting on the pending case.

According to Mayor Joseph DiBella, "The Zoning Board ofAdjustment is an independent, autonomous agency of this municipal government. We are prohibited from engaging in the decision process. We only set the ordinance on what is permitted and what is not permissible."

He said the zoning board "is the jury. They listen to the petitioner's request. They are the local judiciary.We cannot interfere. We are simply the appointing authority. We have to be judicious on how we comment. The council cannot come out and say we are against this. That would corrupt the integrity of the process."