Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2004

Home

Page 6 - September 10, 2004 Z.B. court ruled in favor of the borough. Concerned Citizens appealed, arguing the borough's notice of the public hearing was insufficient because it was nor served on neighboring landowners. DECISION:AJfumed. There was sufficiem public notice. The board twice published notice of the public hearing in the local newspa- per. The published norice described the proposed redevelopment area and the date, time, and location of the hearing. The notice swted the purpose of the hearing was to delennine whether the "smdy area" comprised of certain "municipally owned properties in the Borough of Princeton. .. [was J an area in need of redevelopment." It also set forth a decailed descnption, both by address and lot and block number, of the proposed study area. Finally, the notice ex.plicitly stated a map of the study area and accompany- ing report were on file with the municipal clerk and available for public inspec- tlOn at the address and times provided. Since all of the property within the redevelopment area was municipally owned, the borough was not required to serve this notice on nearby landowners or businesses. see also: Hinh v. City of Hoboken, 766 A..2d 803 (2001). see aLso: Forbes v. Board of Treasurers afTownship of South Orange Village, 712 A.2d 255 (1998). Variance --:-Board passes resolution denying teleconununications company req uest Resolution contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law Citmion: New York 5/v[5A v. Board o/Adjustmem afTownship of VVeehawken, Superior Court of New Jersey, ApV Div., No. ..1-3634-02T2 (2004) NE\V JERSEY (06/29/04) - New York SMSA wanted to install antennas on the roof of a residential apartmenr building and place telecommunications equip- ment in the building's basement. To do so, New York SMSA applied ro the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the rownsbip of Wee hawk en for a use variance. The varianc'e \vas ultimately denied by board resolution. The resolmion simply stated the board was denying the variance witham providing any additional findings of fact or conclusions of law. New 'lork SrvIS,~, sued. and [he coun ruled in its favor. The board ~lppe~ljed.lrgui.::lg ltS resolUtion denying the variance was le- g~lUy sutficient because It mcluded remJrks made by board members during [he flecess~ry hearIngs. DECLSIO;\[: A.J.'TIrmed. The t,\)(1rd' 5 res~)I_u[l(:r. ~',jded ~{; -~()n1pty \'\/l[h stJ[c la \,V because Ie failed to ~(:~ ;~~1e (~C'c~s.s;..lr": ~'~:c~,~ jnd 2:)nc~USIC[}:), 110 _ ~I;O~~ -::.;If~lc,i'. :;'.::;:iSl:li\Cj :':;:'_;C .:.nv ...=;aroCUC:\C;ll :~ ~ri}r\[OiIec. .::'~~r -ncr2r:TOrmancn :;!f::::lse .:2.!i ;J; :i.':.,)QJ..'3.