Council Hears Undersized Lot Development Concerns

A case pending before Manchester's zoning board caused some residents to ask the Monday night if there is any way to prevent development on undersized residential lots. 

Case law from the late 1980s states that construction on undersized residential properties must be granted a variance by the township's zoning board of adjustment since the smaller property is considered a hardship. This means that residents like Kathy and Mike Mango, who live in Manchester's Pine Lake Park section where numerous 75 by 100-foot lots are located among regular sized properties, may have closer than normal neighbors.

"Where is the protection for the residents of Manchester?" asked Kathy Mango, who, along with her husband, owns a 10th Avenue home next to an undersized lot that is being pursued for development. She said during public comment that her family may consider moving since a two story home is proposed to be built on the lot behind their ranch. 

"I'm very sympathetic to what you're saying, but these guys have no control over it," said township attorney Steven Secare of the council's ability to act in the matter.

When they moved into their home, Mike Mango said that he and his wife were unaware that the neighboring lot could be developed and were told at the time that the land could not be built upon. While Mike Mango said that he could understand the court's ruling in the 1987 Dallmeyer case heard before New Jersey Superior Court which grants development variances to those who prove they faced a hardship because of their smaller property, he felt it was not being properly applied. 

"The difference here is someone knows what the rules are, comes in and buys the undersized lot and then goes ahead and is able to move ahead" with construction, he said. "This is self-imposed hardship."

The variance applicant is realtor Lisa Duerkes. Duerkes was granted one variance for an undersized lot at the zoning board's January meeting. The other — next to the Mango property — was adjourned after the board decided that Duerkes did not allow for the Mangos to submit a counteroffer when she asked if the family wanted to purchase the land, since the potential developer must attempt to buy the neighboring property or offer to sell their land to a neighbor before a variance is granted by the board. A decision for the variance is expected at the board's Feb. 23 meeting.

Jim Hankins, a zoning board member who spoke — but not on that body's behalf — said that Pine Lake Park is problematic because develop of the area began in the 1920s before the township's master plan was created.

"This resulted in the lots being developed in a disorderly manner," he said. Hankins said that those requesting the variances are mostly speculators who build a home to sell it and typically are not residents.

"This does result in additional revenue for the township," Hankins said, though he called the regulations "unfair."

"I don't have any solution for this," Hankins said before the council. "I'm asking you guys if you have any other solutions for this."

Council president Craig Wallis said that he is in agreement with Hankins. A solution to the problem, he said, is hard to come by.

"What the answer is, I don't know," Wallis said. "But we should look into it." 

Because a New Jersey court made the decision, the township's hands are tied, Secare said.

"It's not this council's job to overrule Dallmeyer. They can't," Secare said. "Ultimately, the courts have the say on if the zoning laws are being implemented correctly."

Secare said that township planner Tom Thomas may have some suggestions on how to deal with the issue.

"Why don't we ask our township planner if a zoning change would matter?" he said, since "legally we can't attack it." 

"Everybody knows Dallmeyer. It's cited by all the highest authorities in the state. This council nor the board of adjustment can overrule the law that's contained in Dallmeyer," Secare said.

Wallis suggested that this case may be an opportunity for the matter to be retried in court. 

"If I were going to the meeting, I would make the case that somewhere along the line this has to be stopped and the ruling has to be tested," Wallis said. Another avenue of opposing construction on the smaller lots may be concerns with excessive septic systems, something township business administrator Elena Zsoldos said she would pursue with the state. 

Council vice president Brendan Wallis offered another suggestion. When a buyer was interested in building on an undersized lot near his Pine Lake Park home, a group of neighbors came together and protested the variance at a zoning board meeting. The potential buyer then backed out, he said.

But the situation may be futile for the Mangos and others living next to undersized lots. By investigating solutions, "the township can delay the inevitable," said councilman Samuel Fusaro. "But it's just that."