Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2007

Home

March 1, 2007 I Volume 1 I No,S inch of dust would accumulate on her car. Also, she alleged that Griff's cus- tomers would sometimes use her property to park their cars or as a restroom. In addition, there were numerous crashes at the facility, one being fatal. The noise or dust alone would have been enough to consider the use noxious, but the added testimony concerning safety clearly made the use impermissible. Grill argued on appeal that the language in the order prohibiting him from using the land as a motocross track was not clear and unequivocal. Griff further claimed that there were other uses similar to his that were al- lowed in the zone. The court rejected both claims. The court found that the language enjoining the operation of the track was deal; stating that "[eJven if Griff [was] truly confused by the orde~ he [bore] the responsibility of obtaining clarification before undertaking conduct that [was] questionable under the terms of-the order." Further, the court found that the zoning board was the correct body to determine if the nature of his land use was similar to other, permitted uses, and the board had not done so. Grill's appeals were dismissed. See also: City of Boston v. Back Bay Cultural Ass'n, Inc., 418 Mass. 175, 635 N.E.2d 1175 (1994), Variance-Developer's subdivision plan requiring minor variance rejected Developer claims plan more consistent with town plan than board's alternative Citation: Martelli Development, Inc. v. Planning Bd. ofTp. of Middletown, 2007 WL 313468 (N.]. Super. Ct, App, Diu, 2007) NEW JERSEY (02/0S/071-Martelli Pevelopment Inc, applied to the plan- ning, board of the township of Middleton for subdivision plan approval. It wanted to divide a lot that fronted a busy street into four single-fam- ily residential lots fronting a proposed cul-de-sac. The plan was consistent with the town's master plan. Because one of the lots would not meet the minimum lot size, Martelli also applied for a variance. At the rime of the request, there was a nursery, tree-service business, and a single house on the property. The nursery was a nonconforming use, and it involved the storage and operation of heavy machinery not compatible with the area's residential character. The house was also nonconforming;- it did not meet the side yard requirement. Martelli's plan would eliminate the non- conforming uses and was designed by an experienced builder who had built many other homes in the township. Several hearings were held. The board suggested that Martelli should al- ter its plan to create three lots that would continue to front the street. The board argued that this would create three conforming lots, and Martelli would no longer need a variance. However, the board's proposal created lots that would be deep and narrow, and at least one of the lots would require a variance from the lot frontage requirement. Additionally, access to the lots would have to be on driveways connecting to the busy street, which raised safety and traffic concerns. Ultimately, the board voted to deny the subdivision and accompanying variance request. Martelli filed an action in court challenging the board's de- cision, and the court found in its favor. The board appealed, arguing that 4 ) 102