Group plans to appeal court decision last month.
By: Cynthia Koons
UPPER FREEHOLD They protested at municipal meetings and lost. Then they went to court and lost.
Now, nine months after the Washington Township Planning Board approved the 5.58 million-square-foot Matrix warehouse park on the border of Upper Freehold, the residents continue to fight.
"After reviewing (Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg’s) decisions we all feel that we have excellent grounds for appeal," said Bob Pinto, spokesman for Residents for Smart Growth, a group of Upper Freehold neighbors who live across from the proposed warehouse park.
"The (area) that we’re going to be appealing on is the ‘reasonable mix,’" he said. Mr. Pinto represents the residents of Lynwood Estates, a neighborhood of large, newly built homes in Upper Freehold. The residents sued after the Planning Board approved the application. In their initial suit, the residents said they were not given adequate time to speak on fair access to documents. They accused then-township Mayor Dave Fried of a conflict of interest when he endorsed the project on the editorial page of a local daily newspaper.
Their grounds also included a contention about the "reasonable mix" portion of the ordinance that governs that region. According to Washington Township’s zoning ordinance, the development of that property should have a reasonable mix of warehousing and office, retail or other nonindustrial commercial space.
The application that was approved included 60,000 square feet of office space in the 5.58 million-square-foot warehouse park.
Yet in state court in Trenton last month, Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg sided with Matrix and the Planning Board on the grounds that warehousing is the commercial development of choice in the current marketplace.
This did not satisfy the Lynwood Estates residents, who requested a $10 million settlement in April, which Matrix quickly rejected.
"One of the things we put down there as a wish list. As part of the 11 items was $10 million, just to put something on the table," Mr. Pinto said. "Quite honestly, we put that on there, just looking at the future. If that goes in there as a warehouse project and the property around us goes for industrial warehouse development, our development would be an island."
But Matrix contacted the residents and refused to discuss the issue further because of the financial stipulations set forth by the residents.
The May 30 court date interrupted the chance for further discussions between the residents and Matrix, Mr. Pinto said.
"We were very disappointed with the judge’s decision," Mr. Pinto said. "We have good grounds to appeal that because our appeal is based on the law."
His group’s attorney, Princeton-based environmental lawyer Stuart Lieberman, said he feels this case could be a precedent for further warehouse development and zoning disputes in the state.
He said he hopes to expose the Planning Board for not following its own "reasonable mix" designation in its ordinance. In doing this, he said he believes that developers and planning boards statewide will be held responsible for the ordinances that their respective municipalities create.
Mr. Lieberman said he has not formally served the Planning Board and Matrix with his appeal, and that he has 45 days from when the decision was handed down to do so.
Mike Balint, Washington Planning Board attorney, could not be reached before The Messenger-Press’ Tuesday deadline. Representatives from Matrix were also unreachable at that time.