Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/07/1995

Home

Z.B. ~ February 1995 -- Page 5 The club~'s original plat could have been approved because it met all commission ~egulations. However, since the residents were concerned about increased traffic, the club agreed to change the through street to a cul-de-sac. This change ~lleviated increased traffic, and everyone approved it (inc, luding the residents)¢ Also, the residents could not object to their representative s com- ments about ~tpproval of the plat -- testimony regarding neighborhood meet- ings showed t~hey chose him as their spokesperson. Chestnut Hills Civic Association V. Dobbins, 361 So. 2d 1.043 (1978'). Zoning Cha~ge Neighbors Say Township Committee Biased in Favor of Wal-Mar~ Faulhabei' v. Township Committee of the Township of Howell, 643 A.2d 52 (New Jersey) 1994 · A 55-acr~ triangular-shaped property (the triangle) in Howell Township, N.J., was enclosed by three roads. One of these roads was Route 9, the major north-south r6ute through the township. Until 198~, a small part of the triangle along Route 9 was zoned "highway commercml, ~wh~ch allowed small co~mmercial uses on small lots. As a result, that part of the triangle had small businesses or strip stores. In 1988, when the state finished ~ualizing Route 9 throughout the township, the township amended its master plar~ to include "highway development" zoning. Highway ~levelopment zoning required larger lots than the highway com- mercial zone, ~s well as significant setbacks from the highway and intersecting streets. The pgrpose of this zoning was to attract creative, larger commercial and office useS. The 1988 rhaster plan placed in a highway development zone the small part of .the triangle th[t had been highway commercial. The rest of the triangle was in an agricultura~ zone that allowed single-family homes on 2-acre lots. In 1989, tl~e Township Committee adopted a zoning ordinance to put the master plan into effect. However, the ordinance zoned a much larger portion of the triangle as[highway development. This left only five lots (which totalled five acres) zor!ed agricultural. The five ldts zoned for agricultural use were part of a property Wal-Mart wanted to devdlop into a store. Therefore, Wal-Mart had to get these lots zoned for highway d :velopment use. The committee was very interested in having Wal-Mart come to the township, so it amended the zoning ordinance. Neighbori~ g landowners sued the committee. They claimed committee members were, biased in favor of Wal-Mart, violated the state Open Public Meetings Act, :and did not fully consi~ler the impact of the proposed develop- ment. They als~ said the ordinance wag not consistent with the master plan and was improper ~pot zoning and fiscal zoning. There was ia 45-day time limit in:which lawsuits challenging ordinances could be filedl~ The neighbors did not sue until almost 10 months after the 1