Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

May 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No.1 0 The decision of the lower court was affirmed. See also: EUTton v. Douglas County, 65 Wash. 2d 619, 399 P.2d 68 (1965). Variance-Developer cannot proceed with county- . mandated plan without variance Borough denies variance because no hardship exists Citation: The Ridge At Saddle River, L.L.c. v. Planning Bd of B01'ough of Saddle River, 2007 WL 1215028 (N.j. SupeT. Ct. App. Div. 2007) NEW JERSEY (04/26/07)-A developer, Ridge at Saddle River, LLC, owned property in the borough of Saddle River. As part of a legal set- tlement with the previous ow-ner, the land was rezoned to allow the development of 68 affordable housing residential units. When the de- veloper acquired the land, certain conditions of that seLJement still ap- plied. One such condition had to do with access to the property. Al- though it was' accessible by two different county roads, Chestnut Ridge and County Road, only Chestnut Ridge was to be used to enter and exit the property. The developer submitted a site plan to begin construction of the resi- dential units. Due to circumstances that were not clear in the record, a "compromise plan" was eventually accepted by the county planning board. The compromise plan contradicted the ordinance, because it al- lowed an exit on County Road-but only allowed cars to turn right onto the road. The county amended the original site plan without re- quiring the developer tei obtain any variances. L'\.J.Lrer conducting a traffic study, the county lifted all restrictions on the access roads and told the developer to "prepare revised drawings to reflect a full access driveway" that would outlet to County Road. The developer, following the county's directive, applied to the zoning board of the borough of Saddle Ridge for approval to construct the drive- way. However, the board found that creatD.-"1g a full access driveway on County Road was in violation of the. ordinance-which had never been amended-and told the developer that a variance wQuld be required. After a hearing on the variance, the board denied the plan. The bor- ough claimed that-because the developer had never challenged the county ordinance-the only hardship it faced was self-inflicted. In addi- tion, the borough claimed that the developer had not shown how grant- ing the variance would align with the borough's land use plan. The developer appealed the board's decision to court, which found in its favor. The court found that the "direction from the County Planning Board respecting the access to and from County Road was sufficient to demonstrate [he element of hardship if the variances were not granted." Further, the county had conducted a traffic study and determined the 11 199