Zoning Board Rejects Motion To Consider Hekemian Revisions a New Application

Board denies motion made by counsel for Councilman Austin Ashley that the revisions made to the site plan application constitutes a new application,

The Zoning Board formally denied a . (Leibman, appointed New Milford's Borough Attorney, has removed himself from representing Ashley in this matter.)

With the exception of Peter Rebsch and Joe Loonam, all of the Board members voted to consider the revisions an amended application, thereby allowing the hearings to proceed as scheduled.

In presenting his motion to the Board for consideration during the December meeting, Leibman cited the case of Lake Shore Estates v. Denville Township, and said, "This is a substantially different application than what was originally filed."

The Board based their decision on the information provided by the applicant's attorney, Antimo "Andy" DelVecchio, in a ten-page memo submitted to the Board on Dec. 28, and the legal opinion rendered by Sproviero. DelVecchio's memo concluded that because no qualitative changes had been made to the site plan, the revisions constituted an amended application and not a new application.

In rendering his legal opinion, Sproviero also concluded that the revisions to the site plan do not constitute a new application, but an amended application.

Sproviero said that of the four judicial cases regarding "new vs. amended" site plan applications, only one case was determined to be a new application--the Lake Shore case originally cited by Leibman when making his motion.

Sproviero explained that the courts determined that the Lake Shore revisions constituted a new application because the applicant added an additional 28 acres to the development resulting in expanded density and the need for new residents affected by the additional acreage to be noticed.

"Additional density triggers a new application," Sproviero said.

Citing that the revisions that Hekemian has made reduces the number of housing units, thereby reducing the density, Sproviero said that the size of the property and the scope of the development has not changed.

"The applicant has not added new property that would affect new residents; there are no new variances that would require new notices," Sproviero said, adding that the commercial component remains unchanged.

Although the revisions will require additional testimony from Hekemian's architect, engineer and traffic engineer, the hearing regarding the proposed development will continue as scheduled.

Have a question or news tip? Contact editor Ann Piccirillo at annpiccirillo@yahoo.com or find us on Facebook and Twitter. For news straight to your inbox, sign up for our daily newsletter.

RavinMaven January 12, 2013 at 01:08 PM
Sorry to disppint you, Celeste. I never was on the PB.
Tomasina Schwarz January 15, 2013 at 04:32 PM
United Water is getting off easy-stop infighting and fight the power instead. I think we all should staple our checks to our bills as a statement of protest of United Water's attempt to build on this property. Hekemian is only the conduit-United Water is the perpetrator. Billing is done by machine-unless the checks are stapled to the bill-then all billing must be done manually. This is a small way of showing United Water that we know they are to blame for this application. Unfortunately we do have to pay our bills.....but we could make it a real pain for UW to collect our money. Protest must continue....in all forms. The members of the Zoning board must understand that they should fear the repercussions of a "yes" vote for this application. Members of the zoning board must not fear litigation of the applicant-they should fear a decision that will be detrimental for the entire town. I have nothing nice to say about Mr. Lange who approved the Walgreen's application and was the spokesperson for the decision. I will never forgive him for his role in the zoning boards decision, no matter how he justifies his actions. Two courts in NJ said our zoning board was wrong for approving the application. Mr. Lange was more concerned with the rights of the applicant and forgot that the townspeople have rights too. The borough attorney's are not always right-Mr. Wiener, Oradell's borough attorney, was wrong too. Stop talking about party politics and keep up the fight against UW.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »