Officials shelve emotions, vote against animal shelter After more than a year of hearings, board denies variance BY JANE MEGGITT Staff Writer At a meeting that ended after midnight, the Millstone Township Zoning Board voted 5-2 to deny Alan and Sharon Gaboff a use variance to construct an animal shelter and grooming/ boarding facility on Ely Harmony Road. The decision at the Feb. 22 meeting brought to a close hearings that began in October 2004. Board members John Finley and Steve Barthelmes voted in favor of the Gaboffs’ plan, while the rest of the board voted against the measure. The Gaboff property, which also includes the family’s residence, is located in the township’s residential (R-130) zone, but the Gaboffs were proposing a commercial use for their land. Sharon Gaboff, who has operated both Adopt-A-Pet animal rescue and a grooming and boarding facility out of a 1,000-square-foot building on her property for 14 years, originally went before the Planning Board with a plan for a 9,670-square-foot clinic. That plan included a kennel and housing area for animals, as well as an exercise pool, a grooming area and a large training area, according to the application. The Planning Board referred the application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Over the course of the hearings, the Gaboffs scaled down the size of their proposed building to 7,057 square feet. They also dropped a planned veterinary clinic from the site. Over the past year, Gaboff testified that she had specifically looked for a property with a kennel from which she could run her Adopt-A-Pet and grooming/boarding businesses when she moved to the township in 1993. She said a former zoning officer, the late Frank Como, had told her that her business would be a permitted use. According to Gaboff, Como had given her his blessing. However, township ordinances do not allow kennels to operate anywhere in the municipality. At the most recent hearing, Gaboff submitted Blue Horizon and Prudential Realty companies’ advertisements from 1992, which listed her property as a kennel. Gaboff also introduced into evidence an eight-year kennel license the township issued to a Sweetmans Lane facility and photos of a Carrs Tavern Road sign advertising a K-9 hotel and groomery. In addition, Gaboff submitted photos of the Academy Bus Co., a commercial business located two doors down from her property. She said her neighbors have had 14 years to complain about her kennel business, but no one has ever filed a complaint against her. Both supporters and opponents of the Gaboffs testified during the meeting. Joe Dangler, who lives within 200 feet of the Gaboff property, said the area should not have a commercial building. He said the previous owner of the Gaboffs’ land did not operate a kennel. Another neighbor, Jerry Ostrander, said the Gaboffs’ application did not fit in with R-130 zoning. He said the Gaboffs should offer their services in an area better suited for a commercial use. Bob Richards, the Gaboffs’ next-door neighbor, said the application caused animosity among neighbors. He asked the board to vote “no” and to “shut her down.” William Fredericks Jr. said he has lived in the neighborhood his entire life and did not realize the Gaboffs had a kennel. He said he thought the animals were the couple’s dogs. Fredericks said the existing building was once used for dog grooming, not boarding, in the early 1960s, and that from about the mid-1970s until 1992, the property was not used as any type of dog facility. Gaboff had several people testify about the good work she does for the community. Former Millstone resident Peg Scroblola came from Gettysburg, Pa., to testify for Gaboff. She spoke about the township’s former zoning officer. “If he [Como] said it was okay, it was okay,” she said, referring to the Gaboffs’ use of the land. Scroblola said that when she looked at the property while it was on the market in the early 1990s, a Realtor told her it was used for a kennel. Michelle Robinson, Gaboff’s neighbor, called Gaboff an asset to the community. She said that early on the Gaboffs invited all of their neighbors to look at the plans for the new building, and that only she and her husband had shown up, along with a reporter for the Examiner. Another neighbor, Beth Butner, also supported Gaboff, saying the property is kept very clean because it is also the Gaboffs’ home. Gaboff gave the board photographs of neighboring properties with detritus on them to refute claims that her facility would reduce property values. A photo of her immediate neighbor’s property included trailers that people have illegally lived in and a sewage pipe that leaked onto her property, she said. Gaboff had an acoustical engineer, Brook Crossan of Potomac Hudson Engineering in Tinton Falls, testify that the proposed building would reduce the noise from the existing structure on the property by about 30-35 decibels. Crossan said people in their houses would not hear the sound of barking dogs, though they might hear a distant noise if they were outside. “It’s not like the situation of hearing your neighbor’s dog bark,” he said. Board members all conceded that Gaboff has done good work in the community. Board member Steve Lambros said he could not permit emotions to guide his judgment. Board Attorney Gregory Vella reminded members that the land use went with the property, not the owner. Chairman Michael Novellino called it “the toughest application in my time on the board. “There is some evidence that it may have been a pre-existing, nonconforming use,” Novellino said. “The Zoning Board must apply the facts we find with the law and ordinances of the township and state.” Township Planner Richard Coppola said he had to consider the application from a land use perspective, not based on whether the applicant was as well liked as Gaboff. “The bottom line is I don’t think the proposed development is inherently beneficial,” he said. After the hearing, Gaboff said she spent three years of time and effort, as well as substantial amounts of money, on the proposed shelter. She asked why the decision not to grant her a variance had not been made when she first went before the Zoning Board. Gaboff noted that two of the four families living within 200 feet of her property support her plans. She wanted to know why the board did not take that into consideration. Gaboff said Ostrander is not a close neighbor and that he lives half a mile away. “People living closer have no problem [with the facility],” she said. Gaboff refused to comment on her future plans.