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.

William Scharfenberg v. Township of Wall Planning Board

May 31, 2012

WILLIAM SCHARFENBERG, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF WALL PLANNING BOARD, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-5755-09.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted February 15, 2012 -

Before Judges Simonelli, Hayden and Accurso.

In this prerogative writs matter, plaintiff William Scharfenberg appeals from the trial court's November 24, 2010 decision, which affirmed defendant Township of Wall Planning Board's (Board) denial of plaintiff's application for major subdivision approval to divide an existing lot into two lots. We affirm.

Plaintiff owns property known as Block 876, Lot 18 in Wall Township, which is located in the R-30 residential zone. The lot is a 117,297 square-foot irregularly shaped lot bisected by a 17,600 square-foot lake and separated from the Manasquan River by neighboring Lots 14.01 and 14.02. Lot 18 is bordered on the north by a twenty-five foot wide private right-of-way known as Twin Lakes Drive, which is part of Lot 14.01, and on the south by a vacated right-of-way portion of an un-constructed dead-end "paper street" known as River Road, which the Township vacated in 2001 to eliminate access to the property from that road. Access from the property to the nearest public street, Ramshorn Drive, is via an easement on the Twin Lakes Drive private right-of-way.

Plaintiff applied for major subdivision approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c to subdivide the lot into two lots, Lots 18.01 and 18.02. Proposed Lot 18.01, which would have frontage on a public street, would be a 53,035 square-foot lot located at the north side of the lake, where plaintiff's present home would remain. Access to Ramshorn Drive would continue through the easement on Twin Lakes Drive.

Proposed Lot 18.02, would be a 60,550 square foot lot located at the south side of the lake on which plaintiff planned to build a 4000 square foot home. Access to Ramshorn Drive would be via a twenty-five-foot frontage at the dead end of River Road.*fn1 There is a guardrail at the dead end of River Road that extends perpendicular to the roadway to prevent cars from going through the dead end into a deep gully on plaintiff's property. Plaintiff proposed to open the guardrail and run it along the westerly property line.

The Board determined that plaintiff required several variances from the zoning ordinance's general and flag lot*fn2

standards because Lot 18 and the proposed lots are flag lots that are not permitted in the R-30 zone, proposed Lot 18.01 had no frontage on a public street, proposed Lot 18.02 had insufficient frontage, and both lots had nonparallel lot lines. Plaintiff argued that: (1) proposed Lot 18.01 did not require a variance for frontage because it fronts on Twin Lakes Drive, which meets the definition of a "street" under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -163; (2) Lot 18 and the proposed lots were not flag lots; (3) by vacating River Road the Township created a hardship supporting the grant of a c(1) variance; and (4) the Board should grant a c(2) variance for frontage because the proposed lots represent a better zoning alternative for the property, and thus, benefit the community.

The Board held eleven non-consecutive hearings over an eighteen-month period. The hearings were contentious with numerous objectors, some with attorneys and experts, voicing their opposition to the subdivision. Alexander Lehrer (Lehrer), a retired Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, was among the objectors.

On October 5, 2009, the Board issued a resolution with detailed findings, and denied the application. The Board found that Lot 14.01 is a flag lot and the "staff" of the flag runs out to Ramshorn Drive and serves as access for Lot 18; Lot 18 and proposed Lot 18.01 are flag lots because they have no frontage on an existing public street; and Lot 18's frontage on River Road did not exempt it as a flag lot because the existing house on the lot is not accessed from River Road. The Board also found that the Township created no hardship by vacating River Road because Lot 18 was developed with the anticipation that it would access Ramshorn Drive via the easement on Twin Lakes Drive.

The Board noted that the zoning ordinance requires flag lots in the R-30 zone to have a minimum lot area of 90,000 square feet, a fifteen-foot buffer along conflicting yards, and an eighty-foot front yard building setback. The Board found that Lot 18 is a conforming flag lot as to minimum lot area; however, the subdivision would make proposed Lot 18.01 a non-conforming flag lot as to minimum lot area because the lot would only be 53,035 square feet where 90,000 square feet is required. In addition, the existing house on proposed Lot 18.01 would violate the front yard setback requirement because the front yard is approximately twenty-five feet where eighty feet is required. The Board also found that because proposed Lot 18.01 lacks frontage, its minimum lot width and depth could not be measured. Thus, the Board could not determine whether additional variances for this lot were required.

The Board found that proposed Lot 18.02 is a flag lot that will only have a minimum lot area of 60,550 square feet, and a setback of only twenty-five feet. The Board also found that the lot's "layout, structures, and improvements . . . will be unlike the other lots on River Road and the neighborhood. It will not contain any ...


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.