PB-17-03/Crestmont County Club by Scott Wlodychak

10. 11. 12. During public comment a neighbor Adam Goldman testified that he resides at 10 Ferris Drive, has been a member of the Club for 10 years and is in favor of the application. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Premises are located in the R-2 Zone. The Board accepts the Zoning Officer’s interpretation that the use is accessory and therefore permitted in the zone. Applicant seeks to install a seasonal air-supported bubble enclosure over four (4) existing tennis courts on the Club's property. The Club property is 240 acres and the tennis courts cover approximately .6 acres. The area in question is in the northeast corner of the Club grounds with the nearest homes being 250+/- away and separated by a wooded area. The main entrance to the bubble would face west towards the interior of the Club. A heating and inflation unit and a generator are proposed on the north side of the structure. The proposal required variance relief for height of an accessory structure (1.5 stories or 15’ allowed, 36’ proposed). Because this is an accessory structure, and not a principal structure, it requires a “c” rather than a “d” variance for height. The Board finds that the variance relief sought can be granted on “c(2)” grounds because the public benefits outweigh the detriments. Although the proposed structure is significantly taller than what is allowed under the ordinance, it is well separated from neighboring residential homes and therefore would not interfere with light and air. The bubble is opaque and therefore would not glow when the interior lights are on. The entrance would face the interior of the property and the generator would not be facing neighboring homes. Unlike a smaller residential property there are no immediate neighbors over which the proposed tall accessory structure would tower. The detriments to the proposal are insubstantial and would not cause significant detriment to the public good nor impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and ordinance. Therefore, the Board finds that the benefits of the proposal will outweigh the detriments and the variance relief sought can be granted. THE DECISION WHEREAS, the Board, having reviewed the application for Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval and associated “c” variance relief and having considered the impact of the proposed application on the Township’s master plan and

reviewed the application for Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval and associated “c” variance relief and having considered the impact of the proposed application on the Township’s master plan and zoning ordinance and