Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/05/2009

Home

() (~ '. ) ( ) ...'-.,..r.. , , II !I I) Zoning Bulletin July 25, 20091 Volume 3/ No. 14 Case Note: Belleau had also argued that state statute barred the im- position of the park impact fees after the Contract was signed because the Contract was a "development agreement" of the type allowed by the statute, controlling all development standards during the term of the Contract. The court refused to consider that argument because it had not been made before the hearings eJ!:aminer or superior. court. Procedural Error~lneligible board member votes on subdivision application, which is approved by a one vote majority. Neighbors maintain vote should be stricken and application approval therefore set aside Citation: Schmidhausler v. Planning Board of Borough of Lake Como, 2009 WL 1491306 (N.], Super. Ct. 2009) NEW JERSEY (OS/29/09)-Ronald Glynn sought to subdiv'ideprop- erty he owned in the borough. He applied.to the borough's planning board (the "Board") for: (1) subdivision approval; and (2) necessary variances. The first hearing on Glynn's application was conducted by the Board on December 13, 2004. At that hearing, Glynn's architect te:;tmed concerning the proposed site plan, as well as the configuration and size of the particular dwellings intended to be constructed on the lots. Subse- quent hearings were held on Glynn's application,)nclumng hearings ill January 2006 and May 2006. Following the May 2006 hearing, Glynn's application was approved by a four-to-three vote of the Board. Thereafter, owners of property (the "Neighbors") abut:ting Glynn's filed a complaint in court, seeking to set aside the Board's approval. The court affirmed the Board's decision. 1)1e Neighbors appealed. Among other things, they argued that the Board's approval should be set aside because one of the Board mem- bers who voted to approve the application was legally ineligible to vote. . That member had missed the December 13, 2004 meeting and had not read the transcript nor listened tothe tape of the meeting before vot- ing. New Jersey statutory law (N.].S.A. 40:S5D-10.2) provided that members who missed hearings were eligible to vote orily if they certified -they read transcripts and listened to recordings from the missed hearing. The Neighbors argued that due to this member's ineligibility, his vote should be stricken. As a result, they argued that the vote of the Board on Glynn's application would the;n be a tie, which, pursuant to statute, constituted a statutory denial of the application. @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 11 63