Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin the pro-rata share of the cost of providing reasonable and necessary utility improvements. The court found the Condition was not desig- nated for such off-site improvements. The court also found that because there was no information as to how the Condition was calculated, the only explanation. was that it was negotiated between Crestwood and the township. Such "free wheeling bidding," the court said, was contrary to the goals of sound land use regulation and was invalid. Plan approvals were not wholly invalid, the court said, if cash con- tributions were: made in good faith; reasonably related to costs of anticipated municipal problems attributable to the proposed develop- ment; and a minor factor in the overall package of legally required con- tributions. The court found the Condition was a major factor. Among the support for its finding, the court cited a township administrator's testimony that the Condition was a "major feature" ofthe plan. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Board. In doing so, the court noted that conditions deemed invalid could have been of such importance that boards may have chosen to deny an ap- plication without them. See also: Perlmart of Lacey, Inc. v. Lacey Tp. Planning Bd., 295 N.J. Super. 234, 684 A.2d 1005 (App. Div. 1996). See also: Township of Marlboro v. Planning Bd. of Tp. of Holmdel, 279 N.J. Super. 638, 653 A.2d 1183 (App. Div. 1995). NoticeNariance-Residents 'challenged a rezone arguing insufficient notice and violation of state law Residents claim law did not allow town to lower standards of an ordinance for a developer Citation: Rakestraw v. Town of Knightdale, 654 S.E.2d 825 (N.c. Ct. App. 2008) A town ordinance and zoning map amendment rezoned a track of land from urban residential district to highway commercial condi- tional district. Residents filed an action against the town. The action sought a court order that the ordinance was void and of no effect. Residents alleged that the town's notice was insufficient. They also alleged that the town's issuance of twenty variances from the Town's Unified Development Ordinance (000) violated state law. The town and the residents each filed a motion for summary judg- ment. The motions asked the court to find that there were no signifi- cant or material issues of fact and to decide the case in their favor on law alone. The superior court granted the town's motion for sum- mary judgment. The residents appealed. On appeal, the residents ar- 10 134 --" ) )