Resident files challenge to Autumn Estates vote Complaint claims development site is home to endangered plant

Staff Writer

By dave benjamin

Resident files challenge to Autumn Estates vote
Complaint claims
development site is home to endangered plant

MANALAPAN — A resident has challenged the Planning Board’s recent approval of the five-home Autumn Estates development, Lamb Lane.

On July 9, Dolores Palazzo, of Manalapan Woods Drive, filed the complaint in lieu of prerogative writs (a challenge of a governmental action) in state Superior Court, Freehold.

The defendants are the Planning Board, Atlas JV, L.L.C., and unnamed individuals with an interest in the application.

The Autumn Estates application was the subject of several hearings before the board this year. The 12-acre property on which the homes are planned contains endangered swamp pink plants.

Palazzo’s husband, Michael, is a member of the Planning Board.

James Kinneally III, the board’s attorney, said Michael Palazzo and board member Beth Ward recused themselves from the May 24 Autumn Estates vote because they live within 200 feet of the proposed development site.

According to the complaint, the Autumn Estates development site is a wooded area that contains diverse flora and fauna, including the swamp pink plant, an endangered species. Palazzo’s complaint charges that, "Autumn Estates will encroach upon the habitat of the swamp pink, risking its destruction."

The complaint charges that "Atlas (the developer) refused to alter its development plan to satisfy the recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency or the Manalapan Environmental Commission."

The complaint charges that one member of the Planning Board who voted in favor of the Autumn Estates resolution refused to recuse herself from the vote, notwithstanding "a clearly demonstrated prejudice and personal animosity toward the objectors to Autumn Estates, and a personal stake in the outcome of the vote due to political affiliations."

Palazzo’s complaint charges that the board, in conjunction with Atlas, revised the development plan in material respects after the public hearing was closed, and prior to voting on the application, the board failed to provide fair notices of the plan to Manalapan citizens, "refusing to permit the public (the) opportunity to gather evidence, comment thereon, or cross-examine Atlas’ witnesses or question Manalapan public officials regarding the revised plan."

Palazzo’s complaint claims the board approved Autumn Estates in violation of the Land Use Law and other New Jersey public meeting laws.

The original application filed in 1996 called for a six-lot subdivision on a 12-acre parcel on Lamb Lane near Route 33, with the Manalapan Woods development on the east end of the property and the Brandywine of Manalapan development on the western end of the development. The development parcel contains 17 swamp pink plants, a lily pad-type plant which is environmentally protected.

In November, the applicant proposed five lots to be used for residential purposes and one lot to be used as a detention basin. The lots would vary in size with the largest being 2.3 acres in the R-40 zone (1-acre minimum).

On March 9 a letter was received by the board from Clifford G. Day, supervisor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The letter offered recommendations based on a Feb. 22 site visit by an FWS biologist accompanied by Greg Valesi, township engineer.

The letter said, "The storm water outfall structure associated with the detention basin is located immediately outside of the 150-foot transition (buffer) area adjacent to Gander Brook and its associated wetlands. Pursuant to the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act, construction activities within wetlands or transition areas require permits from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); … however, we understand that since Autumn Estates development would occur outside of the wetlands and transition areas, permits from the DEP would not be required."

FWS praised the Planning Board and the town’s environmental commission for its interest in protecting the endangered plant species.

The FWS then made the following recommendations to ensure long-term protection of the swamp pink: (1) the township could purchase the property, or have a long-term conservation easement of the area (a preferred method but not required); or (2) if the development is approved, it is recommended that there is a 200-foot transition area along the Gander Brook wetlands, maintain a maximum number of trees, construct an infiltration basin, enforce standards for strict soil erosion and sediment controls, establish a conservation easement, and erect a split rail fence as a visible barrier.

Attorney Kenneth Pape, who represented the applicant, said he had agreed to the recommendations. Pape said an answer to Palazzo’s complaint would be filed and the matter will go before Judge Lawrence Lawson.

"Months and months ago township officials indicated an interest in purchasing the Autumn Estates property," Pape said. "They said they would be interested in buying the property and asked if we would be interested in selling it. We said it was for sale, and we would sell it to anyone."

Pape said he was asked if he would give township officials time to obtain appraisals and said he had agreed to that request.

"The two appraisals came in," the attorney said. "(At first) they never showed them to us. Then I went over to see the business administrator who gave me the appraisals."

Pape said he was disappointed when he heard the figures because he said his client was looking for about $825,000 for the property, but the appraisals came in at $625,000 and $595,000.

"They did not meet my clients’ requirements," said the attorney, adding that he was not contacted by municipal officials after that.

Pape said his client has had offers for the property since then.

According to Pape, it is expected that Palazzo’s complaint will be expedited by the court and heard within three months to one year.

Kinneally, the Planning Board attorney, said, "I don’t think there was anything in the actions by the Planning Board that would be reversed by Judge Lawson or whomever he assigns this complaint to. I expect the board’s decision (approving Autumn Estates) will be upheld."