Two controversial development applications drew substantial neighborhood opposition at the Lakewood Township Planning Board's meeting on Tuesday night, with one subdivision winning approval despite extensive legal objections and another hearing coming to an abrupt halt just as residents were preparing to testify.
The proceedings have raised questions among opponents about how the Board handles public participation, addresses legal challenges to development applications, and balances the interests of developers against those of neighboring property owners.
The first major controversy involved Kettle Creek Holdings LLC's application to subdivide property near Route 70 and New Hampshire Avenue into 30 zero-lot-line residential lots accommodating 15 duplex structures (60 families).
The application had previously been scheduled for a hearing, but the matter was adjourned because the Board lacked a quorum to hear it.
When the application finally proceeded, numerous residents from Buddleman Way, across New Hampshire Avenue, as well as neighbors from Locust and Vermont, appeared in opposition.
Chestnut Street-area resident Aaron Hirsch also appeared and challenged the application on numerous legal and zoning grounds.
Before the hearing, Hirsch submitted an extensive written objection letter detailing alleged deficiencies involving the applicable zoning standards, required variances, public notice, zero-lot-line development, highway setbacks, environmental constraints, stormwater management, recreation requirements and traffic safety.
The letter was accepted into the Planning Board's record.
One of Hirsch's principal arguments concerned whether the applicant had relied upon the wrong zoning standards when designing the subdivision.
Hirsch contended that Lakewood's B-5A zoning ordinance expressly incorporates the B-2 multifamily bulk standards for duplex development, potentially requiring substantially larger lots, greater lot widths and deeper setbacks than those shown on the applicant's plans.
He also questioned whether the Township's ordinance authorizes the proposed zero-lot-line subdivision arrangement in the B-5A zone.
If Hirsch's interpretation is correct, the application could require numerous variances that were never expressly identified in the applicant's public notice, which stated that no variances were being requested.
Hirsch further argued that some of the required relief could potentially implicate the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Adjustment rather than the Planning Board.
Applicant's attorney Adam Pfeffer, engineer Brian Flannery and Board attorney John Jackson pushed back against Hirsch's objections during the hearing.
However, Hirsch maintained that their responses failed to adequately address the specific ordinance provisions and jurisdictional questions raised in his written submission.
Despite the opposition, the Board ultimately voted to approve the subdivision, subject to several conditions.
Although the Board approved the application, members imposed several notable conditions addressing concerns about internal circulation, school-bus safety and recreational facilities.
First, the applicant will be required to widen the roadway pavement to 33 feet.
Additionally, the applicant must seek approval from the Township Committee for the installation of No Parking signs throughout the cul-de-sac bulb and along one side of the entire roadway.
The parking restrictions are intended to preserve sufficient roadway clearance for school buses to safely enter, circulate through and exit the development.
This issue had been raised in Hirsch's written objections, which cited several provisions of Lakewood's Master Plan specifically recommending that new residential developments accommodate school-bus pickup and drop-off.
The Master Plan recommends dedicated school-bus stops within residential developments and, where appropriate, internal circulation for school buses.
The Board's conditions reflect an effort to accommodate school buses within the subdivision rather than requiring children to board and exit buses along Route 70.
The Board also required significant improvements to the proposed passive recreation area.
Rather than accepting the recreation area as originally proposed, the Board directed the applicant to upgrade it with actual playground equipment.
Importantly, the Board will not adopt its formal Resolution of Approval until the applicant submits a concept plan showing the proposed playground improvements.
This will allow Board members to evaluate the amount and nature of the playground equipment before formally memorializing their approval.
Nevertheless, these conditions do not necessarily resolve the separate zoning and jurisdictional objections raised by Hirsch.
The Board's approval may be far from the final chapter in the Kettle Creek controversy.
Neighbors are expected to pursue litigation in New Jersey Superior Court seeking to overturn the subdivision approval.
Such litigation would ordinarily be brought as an action in lieu of prerogative writs, challenging whether the Planning Board acted within its statutory authority and whether its approval was supported by the applicable zoning ordinance and hearing record.
Under New Jersey Court Rule 4:69-6, the ordinary deadline for challenging a land-use approval is 45 days from publication of notice of the final decision.
Because the Board has not yet adopted its formal approval resolution, that litigation period has not yet begun.
The written objections submitted before the hearing, together with the testimony and responses offered during the proceedings, could become important parts of the record in any subsequent court challenge.
Meanwhile, a separate controversial subdivision application submitted by 300 Route 70 LLC drew another substantial turnout of neighboring residents.
The application seeks to add 34 duplex structures (76 families) off Locust Street and Vermont Avenue.
The opponents were represented by attorney Avi Jankelewitz, Esq.
The Planning Board began hearing the application, but the proceedings took an unexpected turn just as members of the public were preparing to present their objections.
Board member Justin Flancbaum walked out of the meeting, resulting in the Board shutting down the proceedings before the waiting residents could present their testimony.
The abrupt ending left neighbors who had attended the meeting and waited two and a half hours to oppose the development without an opportunity to complete their participation that evening.
The application remains unresolved, and the residents' objections have yet to be heard.
FAA News will continue following both applications, including the anticipated legal challenge to the Kettle Creek approval and the resumption of the 300 Route 70 hearing.
To join the FAA News community click here. It's a private group. No one will see your number.
No comments:
Post a Comment