Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

Z.B. October :[5, 1996 -- Page 3 why the board denied the permit. Through its members' inappropriate deni- als and abstentions, the board let the application fail without giving any rea- son for the denial. Therefore, the court had no basis upon which to review the decision. When the board.denied the application, it did so through a denial vote and three abstentions that should have been affirmative votes. By basing their votes on factors other than whether the plan complied with zoning, the mem- bers acted arbitrarily. Four of the five voting members abstained-or voted negatively despite finding that the plan met zoning requirements. They should have voted to grant the permit. Instead, the members focused on neighbors' concerns :that had nothing to do witti zoning. The tWo letter writers acted illegally by trying to force the company presi- dent to resign from the board. The zoning regulations prohibited any board member with an interest in a matter from participating in proceedings re- garding it. The company president did not have to resign, he just~ couldn't participate. FatheP Ryan High School lnc. v. City of Oak Hill, 774 S.W.2d 184 (1988). Merritt v. Wilson County Board of Zoning Appeals, 656 S. W. 2d 846 (1983). Variance Was board too flexible in granting variance to build pharmacY? Pullen v. Township of South Plainfield Planning Board, 676 A.2d 1095 (New Jersey) 1996 Feinberg owned property in a business zone of the township of South Plainfield, iN.J. The property previously had been two car lots. It fronted on two parallel streets, one of which was Holly Avenue. The property could' be considered a "corner lot" under the zoning ordinance, and comer lots had to have a 30-foot front yard setback. Feinberg applied to the township Planning Board to subdivide the prop- erty and build a pharmacy on it. The board granted subdivision approval and several variances. It said it didn't consider the property a comer lot, but even if it did, it would grant Feinberg a variance to allow a 20-foot setback (rather than 30 feet) on the side facing Holly Avenue. The board also granted a variance allowing 33 (instead of the required 40) parking spaces. Feinberg had to fulfill, several conditions, such as getting permission from a'neighboring store to build a fence. The variances the board granted were "flexible c" variances, which meant they had to benefit the entire community. In granting its approval, the board noted that Feinberg's plan had no en- trance or exit on Holly Avenue. It concluded in a 13-page resolution that the proposed development would benefit the area. Since the property was in a retail area, ~he plan would have no adverse impact on property values (i.e., Holly AvenUe residences). Also, the development would be an improvement over the blight the two vacant car lots created. The board also found the