Lake Valhalla Club Hearings Continue at Zoning Board Meeting

At Wednesday's hearing on the Lake Valhalla Club, the Zoning Board of Adjustment listened to testimony on land use, which brought the big picture into focus.

Attorney for Lake Valhalla Club, Stephen Schepis, planned to interview fact witnesses, but board member Thomas Buraszeski and board attorney Bruce Ackerman cut this portion short to hear the testimonies of opposing planners.

Professional planner Adrian Humbert testified for Lake Valhalla Club. He discussed the zoning history and read the complete site plan of improvements the club seeks to do, which includes:

• Cottage renovation with men’s and women’s bathrooms, showers, fence
• Sand area for volleyball with ten-foot poles for a hoistable net
• Framed tent cover over clubhouse patio
• New vestibule in front of clubhouse
• 5’ x 5’ guardhouse at traffic island
• Maintenance shed with two employee parking spaces
• Nine parking spaces west of tennis courts, on existing gravel
• Nine spaces adjacent to south side of tennis courts
• Relocate above ground propane tanks with guardrail
• 2 foot high retaining wall west of tennis courts
• Nine parking spaces and light poles adjacent to gravel
• New indoor bath in pavilion
• 45 overflow parking spaces in grove, wood guardrail, evergreens, lights
• Concrete barrier over brook to ensure pedestrian-only bridge traffic
• Overflow parking in ball field

Humbert outlined improvements done with approval, including a fence in the '90s, warming hut renovation and platform tennis courts relocation in '01, and the clubhouse expansion in '06.

Renovations done without approval included a 10x16’ deck west of the cottage, a fire pit and expanded gravel walkway on the shoreline, a relocated lifeguard area, light installed over the swim team, and miscellaneous paver and slate walks over existing gravel.

Humbert said the club is currently requesting relief under a D-variance permit for legal non-conforming use. He discussed zoning history.

“The Club was formed in 1928, Humbert said. “Until 1952, when Montville first adopted zoning, the club was not subjected to any zoning. In 1952, the township committee placed the club in a 'residential farm district.'”

Humbert said the township adopted new ordinances every few years starting in 1957, redefining how the building could be used.

“In 1957, for nonprofit clubs, a special exception was permitted in municipal land use law as the statutes of use changed.”

The ordinance was revised in 1961. “The club became a prohibited use," Humbert said. "Public utilities, clubs, and large halls are prohibited in this zone. To sum up, for the last 50 years, the club has been legal non-conforming use.”

Humbert said the facility must provide a high degree of benefit to the community under this use. “When a planning board acts to have it conform to land use element, this would be detrimental. If it were a truly objectionable use, you would usually want to correct it, control it, or eliminate it.”

He said, “With a building this size, assuming the club went out of business, there’s the potential to have a use that is undesirable.” He gave an example of an undesirable use, such as a church or a very large house.

Humbert pointed out the perceived benefit under land use law for each improvement the club is requesting. 

“The tent structure has been in use for five to six years,” he said. “Relief requires a ten-foot setback from the clubhouse. The tent is a convenience to guests where food is consumed, and the practice of health and sanitation. The tent is a logical adjunct to outside activity and promotes the statute of maintaining health and safety of members.”

Other benefits included traffic safety and esthetics for the gatehouse, onsite safety and recreation pursuits for the volleyball net, sound building maintenance for the cottage renovation, and desirable visual environment for the fence height.  

“7.35% of the community are members in the club. It has a broader benefit. The club has existed more than 80 years. It is well suited as a country club site terrain, with scenic areas, a shoreline, lake shore vistas. It was selected for its scenic beauty. This supports the land use element of its master plan.”

Board member Gerald Hug asked, “With the improvements proposed, would an “expansion” of non-conforming use present a problem? A substantial negative impact to surrounding neighborhood?”

Humbert said, “There’s a beneficial aspect to each one that does not provide a substantial negative impact. They are designed to mitigate them.”

He used parking as an example.

“In the grove, for valet and employee parking on unpaved gravel and cleared space, parking could be defined or identified without the need for striping. Marked with reflecting tape or something to not identify it as a parking lot, used for overflow.”

“In the ball field, there will be a managed facility used with traffic guidance, so when peak crowding occurs three or four times a year, this would serve as means of mitigating on-street parking.”

Josh Mann, attorney for two residents, brought in his planner, Jason Kasler. His testimony began, “There is a 500-pound gorilla in the room. What the board is proposing outside of all this, there was no testimony as to a D-1 variance. 

"D-1 is necessary to continue to hold weddings — a new use not permitted in the zone. D-2 is expansion of a legal non-conforming use. We’re looking at a lake club that has a catering facility subsidizing it and goes way beyond a non-conforming use.”

Kasler said, “7% of municipal members leaves 93% non-members. This nonprofit is running almost as a profit."

Kasler defined the term non-conforming use as, “Inherently beneficial," saying it is generally used for schools and hospitals. "Municipal land use law has short list of inherently beneficial, but the rest are usually decided by case law.”

Kasler said, “Undue hardship – we’re saying a lake community where you have two to three weddings per year for the membership, instead of two or three per weekend. There’s nothing that says, 'because it’s a lake, we have to have weddings,'” he added. "If it were particularly well-suited, we would not have to park cars in a ball field." 

He continued, "Zoning relies on conformity, so you have an idea of what your neighbor is doing. I cannot think of one place where a banquet hall would be in a residential neighborhood. I think this will somewhat destroy the character of the community. The banquets are for auxiliary or non-members. Burden of proof is on the applicant," Kasler said.

After the planners' testimony, Schepis brought up a William Troutman, a 39-year member of the club, as a fact witness, followed by Perry Bonadies, the club's general manager.

At 11:00 p.m., Buraszeski called the meeting to adjourn. He said, "Mr. Burgess [Town planning consultant] will interpret and absorb what has been presented and discuss it next month."  

The public will also have the opportunity to address the testimony presented at today's meeting. The next meeting is August 3rd.