Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />[was] encircled, completely and contiguously, to form the island in the <br />first instance, [was] the territory that may be annexed-no more and, <br />also, no less." <br />The decision of the lower court was affirmed. <br /> <br />Site Plan Approval-Resident challenges developer's <br />plan to build shopping center <br /> <br />Claims project lacks elements necessary under ordinance <br /> <br />Citation: Aubrey v. Deptford Tp. Planning Bd., 2007 WL 1661581 <br />(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Dill. 2007) <br /> <br />NEW JERSEY (06/11/07)-In 2004, luG Real Estate, LLC, applied <br />to the planning board of the Deptford Township for site plan ap- <br />proval of a development project. The project included the building <br />of two "anchor stores," several commercial retail spaces, and a gas <br />station on property that was located in a business commercial zone. <br />One of the anchor stores was reportedly going to be a WaLT\1art. <br />The board denied the application after a hearing was held, citing <br />the need for several variance and design waivers, so AIG submitted <br />a revised plan that conformed to the zoning ordinance. Several more <br />hearings were held, during which some members of the public op- <br />posed the project strongly. While the application was pending, the <br />township adopted two ordinances that excluded or regulated certain <br />uses and limited the hours of operation for certain businesses; these <br />ordinances directly affected AIG's application. <br />The board denied the revised application as well, citing the newly <br />adopted ordinances. AIG appealed to court, arguing that t..he ordi- <br />nances denied its substantive and procedural due process rights. The <br />court found in AIG's favor, and-although not going so far as to order <br />its approval-ordered that the site plan be put back before the board <br />for final public comment and decision. <br />Ultimately, the board approved the application. Aubrey, a resi- <br />dent who objected to the project, filed a petition in court seeking_to <br />void the board's decision. The court dismissed the complaint, and <br />Aubrey appealed. <br /> <br />Decision: Affirmed. <br /> <br />Aubrey argued that the board's decision was arbitrary, capnclOUS, <br />unreasonable, and contrary to law. Specifically, he claimed that the <br />improvements proposed by AIG did not constitute a shopping center <br />as defined by the township's development ordinance and Ihat board <br />had erred in its determination that the project did not require any <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />164 <br />