Springfield can re-introduce ordinances with proper notification
By: Cara Latham
SPRINGFIELD State Superior Court Judge John A. Sweeney on Friday refused to reverse his Sept. 13 ruling that overturned the township’s 10-acre zoning ordinances.
Judge Sweeney had ruled that the ordinances, which had been adopted in March, were invalid because insufficient notice had been provided to residents and because the measures violated state municipal land use law.
The judge’s ruling followed seven suits brought against the township challenging the "downzoning" ordinances, which raised the township minimum lot size from 3 to 10 acres except in clusters designated for development. Some landowners have claimed at public meetings that the change devalued their land and have described the changes as restrictive.
The township, in a motion for reconsideration, had maintained that the court overlooked the "undisputed facts" that the Planning Board conducted a general re-examination of the township Master Plan.
"We’re very disappointed and really surprised," said Planning Board Attorney Denis C. Germano. "When he read his initial decision, it really seemed to all of us that he just made a fundamental factual mistake, that he didn’t realize that we did something that we, in fact, did."
Mr. Germano said the state municipal land use law requires individualized notice to property owners in the absence of a re-examination report, but that the disputed ordinances were in fact adopted as a result of periodic re-examination report, and therefore, did not carry with them the individual notice requirement. The re-examination report had been adopted by the Planning Board on Nov. 1, 2005.
Mr. Germano said that Judge Sweeney’s written decision gave the township officials the impression that "he was under the mistaken impression that we have not done a Master Plan re-examination report, and that’s why this motion for reconsideration was filed, because in fact, we did do the report. What he clarified at the hearing was that he did, in fact, understand that we conducted a re-examination report, but that the way we did it was not the way the statute says it needs to be done."
Further, "the judge feels that we should have sent a notice to every property owner that was affected by the ordinance," which is about 1,000 to 1,300 landowners, he said. Township Attorney Dennis McInerney agreed with this explanation.
"We did go through the re-examination process," he said. "The judge found that the process, in his opinion, was flawed."
Mr. Germano said the decision could be appealed to the Appellate Division of the state Superior Court, and that he would advise the township to do so.
Mr. McInerney said Tuesday that he was authorized by the Township Committee to file an appeal. Both attorneys said that the appeal process could take about six months to a year.
Henry L. Kent-Smith, attorney for one of the landowners who had filed suit, said that his clients are very encouraged by the decision.
"I think this whole thing the township has done with the zoning has been a humongous waste," he said, adding that he believed fighting the decision was a waste of taxpayer dollars. "The point of contention was the mischaracterization by the judge. The judge admitted, ‘Hey, I didn’t use the right term, but what I decided was still correct.’"
But the Township Committee could send the notification letters out and then re-adopt the ordinances, both attorneys confirmed.
"The judge did not say that there was anything wrong with the ordinance," said Mr. Germano. "What he said was that the procedure we followed to adopt it was wrong. We can avoid any disagreement with the judge by doing it the way he said we should have done it."
"In order for the ordinances to be valid, we could technically reintroduce the ordinances, give notice to everybody, and it would be up to the council to decide" if they want to do that, said Mr. McInerney.
Councilman Peter Sobotka said the Township Council is "seriously looking at" doing so, adding that the topic would be discussed at the council’s meeting last night (Wednesday), after Register-News deadline.
"The end result will be that 10-acre zoning will be in effect," he said. "The majority of people that I spoke with were interested in having that done. With the support of the voters, it indicates to me that that’s what people want."

