BY LAUREN MATTHEW
Staff Writer
OLD BRIDGE — Representatives of the proposed Oaks at Glenwood development pleaded with the Planning Board Tuesday in an effort to discuss conditions of approval that they say are impossible to meet.
Attorneys for John J. Brunetti, the Oaks developer, told the board Tuesday night that their rights had been ignored when the board voted Feb. 1 to approve the large-scale Oaks development, as ordered by a Superior Court judge, with numerous conditions.
The Oaks application had been denied by the Planning Board in 2003, which caused Brunetti to appeal their decision. State Superior Court Judge Edward J. Ryan ordered the board to approve the application “with reasonable conditions.”
The Feb. 1 board approval went along with 10 pages of conditions, including a 20-acre allotment of land for the building of a school, construction and extension of roads including White Oak Lane, the donation of property for a fire house.
Attorney Michael Fitzgerald, representing Brunetti, called those 10 pages “a laundry list of impossible conditions,” saying also that he felt the township was trying to stop the application from coming to fruition.
According to the court ruling, Brunetti must eliminate 58 single-family homes from his approximately 1,500-home application. No variance or waiver relief would be needed.
The homes would be built along with 600,000 square feet of commercial development space.
“We would like the opportunity to review,” Doug Wilson, a representative of Brunetti, told the board Tuesday as the board was poised to vote on memorializing the Oaks approval.
Wilson said the developer’s side was not heard during the hearing process, though Chris Norman, a former Planning Board attorney retained by the board as special council for the Oaks, maintained that everything had been heard.
“We would like to be heard,” Wilson said. “We would like a special meeting to be heard regarding those issues.”
Planning Board Chairman Lawrence Redmond told Wilson that the board was advised not to take new testimony regarding the development.
“If I open it to you, I would have an obligation to open it to the public,” Redmond said. “We were told we weren’t allowed to that.”
“Judge Ryan’s order provides that we have an opportunity to be heard,” Wilson said.
That does not necessarily mean that new evidence would be introduced, he added, but the Brunetti team wants an opportunity to discuss what is in the record regarding the application.
“I can’t, in all fairness, allow the applicant to start giving testimony about what’s in the record,” Redmond said.
“That is a prerogative that normally no applicant has,” Norman said.
Wilson said he believed that was a mistake, and that he had a right to be heard, as did any residents.
He also said the conditions imposed by the board do not fairly reflect the record.
Brunetti attorneys and Norman traded excerpts from the court order to prove their points.
Despite the objections, the board ultimately voted unanimously to memorialize its resolution on the Oaks.