Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin '. The Project site was a 10.9 acre parcel of land in what is a research and development (RD) zone in the township. The Project was to in- clude commercial space comprised of a sit-down restaurant and office and retail use. The Project also would include four apartment build- ings for residents fifty-five and older. The RD zone prohibited residential housing and disallowed retail business and restaurants except on lots with at least 100 acres. Crest- wood, the Project proponent, applied for two use variances for relief from the use restrictions in the RD zone. Crestwood's application sought bulk variances for setbacks, distances between buildings, and minimum buffers. Crestwood sought preliminary site plan approval of the entire project and final site plan approval of "phase one," consist- ing of sixty residential units. Crestwood mailed notices of the hearing on its application to the listed owners of property located within 200 feet of the project site. A public notice of the application was also printed in a local paper. The mailed notices and published public notice both incorrectly listed the property's Block number as "2713" rather than "2173." The notices did correctly identify tax map 213, which showed where the Project was to be located. The notice did not mention the 168-seat restaurant proposed for the site. The notice indicated that a public hearing on the application would be conducted before the Township's Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) at its next regular meeting on April 12, 2005. Crestwood's application was subsequently adjourned to a "special meeting" on May 24. A public notice of the adjournment was pub- lished in the local newspaper. No members of the public appeared at the May 24 meeting in op- position to the Project. The Board members voted 7 to 0 to approve the application, issuing preliminary site plan approval for the entire site and final site plan approval for phase one. The Board granted the application subject to numerous conditions, including a $4,000 per- residential unit payment for recreation llnprovements to a local park (the "Condition"). Several township residents and a watershed preservation advocacy group (collectively, the "Residents") filed a lawsuit against Crestwood and the Board, challenging the Board's approval of Crestwood's applica- tion. The Residents alleged, among other things, that the public notice for the project was deficient, and the Condition was an "unlawful exaction." The trial court upheld the Board's resolution, except for the Condi- tion. The court removed the Condition from the resolution. The Residents appealed. On appeal, the Residents reiterated their allegations. They also argued that the trial court should not have re- moved the Condition, but should have invalidated the approvals in their entirety. 8 132 ,~'\ i J (=) .~)