Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scudese v. Washington Township Planning Board

August 6, 2007

FRANK SCUDESE AND MARGARET SCUDESE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD, WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP AND T.M. GROUP, INC., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
FRANK SCUDESE AND MARGARET SCUDESE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD, WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP AND T.M. GROUP, INC., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
MATTHEW CARFARO, FRANK AND SHARON CARFARO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD, WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP AND T.M. GROUP, INC., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Morris County, L-115-02, L-1341-01, L-97-02, L-892-04.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued: February 6, 2007

Before Judges Kestin, Graves and Lihotz.

These appeals from judgments in actions in lieu of prerogative writs present related questions. We consolidate all three appeals for the purposes of this opinion. Plaintiffs, Frank and Margaret Scudese, as neighbors and objectors, challenged the actions of the Washington Township Planning Board in granting preliminary and final subdivision approval to TM Group, the developer of a 71.84-acre tract, for the construction of twelve homes; challenged the validity of a Township ordinance governing cluster and lot-averaging subdivisions, under the authority of which the subdivision approvals had been granted; and asserted a claim to an implied easement over the subject property for the annual erection of a snow fence. The trial court affirmed the grants of preliminary and final subdivision approval, and dismissed the challenge to the ordinance and the easement claim.

The many arguments advanced by plaintiffs, combined as appropriate, may be presented as asserting trial court error in:

* CERTIFYING AS A FINAL JUDGMENT ITS MARCH 28, 2004 ORDER, IN WHICH IT AFFIRMED THE PLANNING BOARD'S GRANT OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL;

* AFFIRMING THE PLANNING BOARD'S GRANT OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, BECAUSE THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE APPLICATION DUE TO THE PENDING LAW DIVISION CHALLENGE TO THE GRANT OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL;

* AFFIRMING THE PLANNING BOARD'S GRANTS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, BECAUSE THE BOARD HAD NOT APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES;

* AFFIRMING THE PLANNING BOARD'S GRANTS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, BECAUSE THE SUBDIVISION PLAN WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE LOCAL ORDINANCE, OR BECAUSE AN ALTERNATIVE SUBDIVISION PLAN EXISTED THAT WAS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE;

* AFFIRMING THE PLANNING BOARD'S GRANTS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, BECAUSE THE PROPOSED CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, ON WHICH THE APPROVED LOT AVERAGING SUBDIVISION PLAN WAS BASED, WAS DEFECTIVE AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE LOCAL ORDINANCE;

* AFFIRMING THE PLANNING BOARD'S GRANTS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, BECAUSE THE BOARD DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS WATER QUALITY/SEPTIC ISSUES;

* AFFIRMING THE PLANNING BOARD'S GRANTS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, BECAUSE THE BOARD REFUSED ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.