Suing the zoning board

[Libyan Sibyl]

Not sure where to put this thread. It's not about suing our zoning board, don't worry. Neptune lost a historic building so that a car wash could be erected. The town contemplated suit against the zoning board, but realized they would lose and the court would defer to the zoning board's judgment.

It's reminiscent of the Bartleson debacle...

Neptune committee won't sue zoning board
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/10/07
BY NINA RIZZO
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU

Post Comment
NEPTUNE — The Township Committee, which lost a court appeal last week to stop the demolition of a 19th-century home on Old Corlies Avenue, will not pursue a lawsuit against the Zoning Board of Adjustment for granting approval to a developer who wants to build a car wash and quick-lube facility on the property.

"The Township Committee is not going to take any action on a lawsuit for that property," Mayor James W. Manning Jr. said.

Township Attorney Gene Anthony said at the committee meeting Tuesday night that he doesn't think the township should continue to take legal action against the zoning board because Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson would likely rule against the municipality if the matter was brought back before him.

On Oct. 1, Lawson denied the committee's request for a temporary restraining order barring the demolition of the house at 1019 Old Corlies Ave. until its suit against the zoning board could be heard. The house was torn down the next day.

The committee sued the zoning board over approvals of variances for the car wash project, contending that by doing so the board usurped the committee's zoning powers.

"I don't see a reason to continue with our lawsuit," Anthony said.

He said the judge did not believe the board usurped the committee's zoning powers because it merely approved a commercial use in a commercial zone.

Anthony recommended that the Old Corlies Avenue Preservation Alliance, which he maintains would have better standing in the case as an objector, should pursue a lawsuit.

Michael Golub, co-chairman of the alliance, said before the meeting that his group hired an attorney to bring forth a lawsuit. He had hoped the alliance could work with the township in order to present a stronger case.

Golub, of Cliffwood Drive, said his group will argue that the zoning board made an arbitrary and capricious decision when it granted five variances — including a use variance — to developer Felix Bruselovsky.

The decision, the former committeeman argued, "changed the culture and character of the community."

During a workshop meeting earlier Tuesday, Golub suggested that the township employ eminent domain, if necessary, to obtain the site. The group wants a new building erected that would become a "historical education complex" to house historical and environmental education centers as well as provide a new home for the township's museum collection.

"This property is the gateway to the historic neighborhood," Golub said. "Any commercial development of this site beyond the current residential use will open the surrounding homes to direct exposure to Route 33, thus changing the chemistry and character of the neighborhood."

Unlike Ocean Grove, the neighborhood Golub cited is not deemed a historic district and doesn't have any of the building restrictions that comes with that designation.

Joseph Krimko, a former Planning Board member who lives on McClintock Street in Ocean Grove, agreed that the township couldn't win its lawsuit against the zoning board. He doesn't object, though, to the township purchasing the property as long as it doesn't use eminent domain.

He also noted that former property owners had lamented the new use for their old homestead.

"Perhaps I would have sold it with a deed restriction," he said.

www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071010/NEWS01/710100375

[cheryl]

libyansybil said:

Not sure where to put this thread. It's not about suing our zoning board, don't worry. Neptune lost a historic building so that a car wash could be erected. The town contemplated suit against the zoning board, but realized they would lose and the court would defer to the zoning board's judgment.

It's reminiscent of the Bartleson debacle...

How so? Granted, both situations involve the tragic loss of a significant and irreplaceable historic structure, but the similarity ends there.

[Libyan Sibyl]

that is why it is "reminiscent," nothing more (my definition of reminiscent is something that suggests an event from the past). In this case, the destruction of 2 historic buildings for contemporary structures (I would go further as to the unsightliness of both contemporary structures)

In the Neptune matter, once the decision was made by the zoning board, it essentially was a done deal.

Of course, the path for the Bartleson was different as it was originally denied by the planning board then negotiated after the developer sued.

Please feel free to fill in the blanks. It was no condemnation of anyone, just an interesting article of what is also going on in other towns, which I thought was interesting enough to share.

[cheryl]

libyansybil said:

that is why it is "reminiscent," nothing more (my definition of reminiscent is something that suggests an event from the past). In this case, the destruction of 2 historic buildings for contemporary structures (I would go further as to the unsightliness of both contemporary structures)

In the Neptune matter, once the decision was made by the zoning board, it essentially was a done deal.

Of course, the path for the Bartleson was different as it was originally denied by the planning board then negotiated after the developer sued.

Please feel free to fill in the blanks. It was no condemnation of anyone, just an interesting article of what is also going on in other towns, which I thought was interesting enough to share.

Thank you for the clarification.

I am familiar with both situations (though admittedly more so with the Bartleson application) and thought I was missing something.