Superior Court will rule
on development question
The Roosevelt Planning Board’s denial of an application to develop land in the borough is now a matter for the courts to decide.
On Nov. 14, state Superior Court Judge William P. Gilroy, Freehold, heard arguments from attorneys representing landowners Abby and Daniel Notterman and the Roosevelt Planning Board.
Earlier this year, the applicant before the Planning Board with a plan for the Nottermans’ property was Matzel and Mumford, Hazlet. Upon denial of a plan for single-family homes by the board, the contract between the Nottermans and the development firm was terminated, prompting the appeal through the courts.
The Nottermans claim the application for the Matzel and Mumford development was unfairly rejected due to the denial of variances by the board for a 100-foot buffer zone required by borough code.
The property in question is a 110-acre tract off Eleanor Lane and North Valley Road. Matzel and Mumford proposed building 65 homes on the site.
In his presentation to the court, attorney Michael A. Pane Jr., representing the Nottermans, called the buffer requirement minimal and argued that a variance should have been granted. In order to strictly comply with the buffer zone requirement, four building lots would be lost. As it stands, there are four areas of the property where the buffer zone would be compromised, he said.
Pane also brought to the court’s attention the issue of water and sewer use.
"The borough knew there were problems for some time; however, no action was taken," he said.
Attorney Michele Donato, representing the Planning Board, argued that the buffer zone is essential for the borough. Donato said the buffer zone is part of the innovative planning of the borough that provides an open-space green belt.
"The buffer zone was treated by the applicant as a diminished requirement with no planning significance," Donato told the court.
Donato also claimed the board was forced to deny the application because additional testimony was needed. The applicant’s decision to use its discretion to end the proceedings forced the board to deny the application, she said.
"There was a refusal to work things out," the attorney said.
The Nottermans are asking Gilroy to approve the development application rather than remand it to the board.
"If remanded to the board, it will go on for a long time and we may be back here," Pane said.
The Nottermans are also seeking compensation and punitive damages for the economic losses they claim they have sustained as a result of the failed sale of their property and the subsequent denial of the Matzel and Mumford application.
Gilroy is expected to rule on the complaint in the near future.