Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />January 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 2 <br />Permits- Voting /Disqualification — <br />Board Approves STE Plan Application <br />For Store Renovations <br />Neighbors argue for reversal of approval because testifying <br />witness for store was former town planner <br />Citation: Cortesini v. Hamilton Tp. Planning Bd., 2010 WL 5071068 <br />(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010) <br />NEW JERSEY (12/14/10) —This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />professional planner, who formerly was employed by the township plan- <br />ning board as its planner, was prohibited from testifying in front of the <br />board in support of an application for site plan approval. <br />The Background/Facts: In 2009, Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust <br />( "Wal- Mart ") decided to renovate its store in the township. The pro- <br />posed renovation would result in a net increase of 5669 square feet of <br />store space and would add 46 parking spaces. The proposed renovation <br />required a new site plan approval from the township's planning board <br />(the "Board "). <br />The Board approved Wal- Mart's application for site plan approval. <br />Thereafter, other property owners (the "Neighbors ") in the township <br />challenged the Board's approval. Among other things, the Neighbors <br />argued that the site plan approval must be reversed because one of the <br />witnesses —Allen Schectel —who testified for Wal- Mart's application was <br />a professional planner who was formerly employed by the Board as a <br />planner. <br />The trial court affirmed the Board's approval. <br />The Neighbors appealed. <br />Among other things, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Di- <br />vision, held that Schectel was not prohibited from testifying in front of <br />the Board in support of Wal- Mart's application. <br />The court explained that "[a]ny alleged conflict of interest by a pres- <br />ent or former local government officer or employee is now governed by <br />the Local Government Ethics Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9 -22.1 to - 22.5." The <br />only subsection imposing restriction upon former government officers or <br />employees was § 40A:9- 22.5(b), said the court. That section prohibited <br />former members of independent local authorities from representing or <br />appearing on behalf of any other party before that authority for one year <br />subsequent to termination of office of the member. <br />The court found this subsection did not prohibit Schectel from ap- <br />pearing as a witness before the Board. Even if the planning board was <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />