Based on my understanding of the law(s) governing conditional uses here in RT, I believe that this application belongs in front of the Board of Adjustment, not the Planning Board. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
I believe that is where it will end up if they persue it further based on the conditional use guidelines. As such the burden of proof becomes greater for them to substantiate it being a benefit to the town rather than at the PB where the town has the burden to show it being a detriment. In the BOA the tables kind of shift the other way, which will make it even harder for them to gain approval. Hopefully they will realize that they are never coming into RT and they will cut their losses and move on.
Correct me if I am wrong, but before any change of venue, be it courts or BOA, the suit Rockaway has filed on the "exemption" will need to be addressed, right? And unless I am way off base, the current project has changed enough that it will become null and void unless we see a drastic reduction in current plan. At what point does it become a futile exercise?
I believe that a change in venue from the PB to the BOA and the disposition of our lawsuit on the state level agains the decision of the DEP are mutually exclusive legal discussions. I agree with Chuck, that it really benefits us to move this thing to the BOA for the reasons that he stated. We want them on the Defense and not where they are right now. I hope that this is the first order of business at the next PB meeting. I wonder how we can encourage that to be considered. Any ideas?
Please correct me if I'm wrong on this but many months ago didn't this question come up and wasn't it decided at that time that the planning board would hear the case and not transfer it to the BOA? What was the logic at that time behind keeping the matter in front of the PB rather than the BOA and has anything changed since then to suggest that a change in venue is appropriate?
The logic totally alludes me. My G-d, they only want to put what amounts to the Vatican down at the end of my block! If that does not require a variance, nothing does. It should have been thrown down for a variance as far as I can tell, but it was not as you know. However, now is the time to reconsider that motion given the changes in our ordinances, don't you think?
Mega vs traditional church brought the PB vs BOA into the conversation once...it could go that route again with a different argument.
Back in the day, this argument regarding Mega v Traditional definition, and the ordinances at 140 Greenpond, it was deemed appropriate to be heard at the PB level, after the discussion of whether a Mega-church is the same as a church was exhausted.
The argument was because the term and definition is listed as two things, and because in any reasonable persons mind the two are different, are they in deed, by law different?
The argument was "lost" and the board deemed them equal.
If a mega was different from a regular, the argument could have gone to the BOA for review.
Absolutely, especially considering the fact that we have tightened up the ordinances a bit concerning areas that involve conditional uses. How do we make our voices heard to the PB before the next meeting? I will be out of town on business til Sunday myself (to the great relief of many, not the least of which is my wife :( ). If a petition needs to be circulated, I am sure that she would help out with that project but it would probably take the efforts of about 10 people to get the job done before the meeting. What do you think?
