I have one simple question. What is the Township of Middletown's position on the proposed Trinity Hall development in Chapel Hill? When questioned on the issue in the past, the Township Committee told residents that the approval or denial of the proposed development’s application is solely the Township Planning Board’s decision.On June 11, 2014, the Township Planning Board voted 6-3 to deny Trinity Hall's application. Shortly after the application was denied, Trinity Hall filed a law suit against Middletown Township seeking relief of the Planning Board’s decision. One would think that based on the previous statements made by the Township Committee, Middletown and the Township Attorney would vehemently defend the Township Planning Board’s decision. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. This past Friday upon the Superior Court of New Jersey’s ruling on Trinity Hall’s lawsuit, a letter that Middletown Township Attorney, Brian Nelson, wrote to the presiding judge was made public. Based on this letter it appears Mr. Nelson contradicts the position of the Township Planning Board’s decision to deny the Trinity Hall application and it appears that he and the Township Committee side with Trinity Hall by recommending that the Court grant the school’s request to reverse the Planning Board’s decision and approve the application without remand to the Planning Board.
Is it not the responsibility of the township’s governing body to protect the interests of its residents above all else? After reading Mr. Nelson’s letter, all Middletown residents should be asking themselves who is our Township Attorney really working for and what is the Township Committee’s position on the proposed Trinity Hall development in Chapel Hill?
Sincerely,
Jeffrey P. Yachmetz
Concerned Resident of Middletown
15 comments:
here is a fine kettle of fish. throw rule of law out the window. change the game, and give trinity a do over while steamrolling your own towns citizens. township attorney more like gmelich's personal attorney mr nelson some one should look into your personal finances. you should be ashamed of your self!
Is anyone surprised? "That's what friends are for...."
This township's attorney seems to think and act like he was elected to "chair" the TC.
Have never seen politics in Middletown any worse than they have been in these last ten plus years !! Trust of anyone is hard to come by.......
This clearly someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
This is a legal issue, the issue of how a judge will make a ruling and the effect it would have on not only this proposed development, but on ALL proposed or about to be proposed developments.
By making it a political issue, this guy (and Mike and the Ds) are trying to leave the Township open to unfettered development...
uh.. the 'rule of law' is the reason for the WIN on appeal. your true colors showing through with personal attacks. very satisfied now. Kids-1 NIMBYs-0
Oh stop! Most of the Planning Board is appointed by the TC and they voted it down. If that doesn't tell you where the TC is on this then I don't know what to tell you. I was elated when Mr. Ostrander put forth the motion to say no. If this comes back to the Planning Board, we should expect the same vote.
If you are not happy with what is going on, be mad at the courts and their liberal view of the laws and people's wishes. This has nothing to do with our TC.
There is an election this November. This is an opportunity to vote Fiore and Murray OUT OF OFFICE and an opportunity to elect PATRICK SHORT and GEORGE MARDINLY INTO OFFICE.
Since when does a twp. attorney or any twp. official interject their opinion in a matter before the court?
SOO happy to see the Anonymous Family out in force, as usual! I think the point that "October 28, 2014 at 11:48 AM" & "October 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM" are missing is that the TC appointed attorney, Brian Nelson, attached a letter to the paperwork that the town submitted in support of the PB's 'no' decision and wrote if the judge finds that the town was remiss in its decision, that the judge should then proceed to give the green light to Trinity to break ground and begin to build. In other words, their application DID NOT have to go back to the PB for approval, as is usually the case, giving no chance to the people to have a voice. This is wrong.
Anon at 4:15
Really? Lawyers get paid (and lots of money)to "interject their opinion" before a court makes a decision.
It's kind of scary that you get the same vote I do...
Marge -
See my note at 7:51.
This was a plea to have the judge make a narrower ruling that applied to this case as opposed to throwing out the whole statute and leaving the Township without any way to stop any development.
Might not be a win for you, but it really is for the other citizens in town.
Has a public records request been made for Nelson's letter?
Anon 8:21
At this level the role of the Judge is to determine if the process was followed lawfully. Testimony is over, the Judge does not hear testimony at this point in the process and he does not need to hear the opinion of others. He rules on the law. If the Judge decides he will over rule the planning boards decision he can do so and return it to them or over rule it out right. The judge does not need the direction of our twp. atty. as to how he should proceed.
Dear Judge Kapalko:
Please accept this letter in lieu of a more formal supplementary brief on behalf of the Township of Middletown ("the Township") in relation to the remaining issue that the Court asked the parties to address in the above-referenced matter governing severability.
Notwithstanding the legal arguments presented in the Township's brief filed in August, the Township agrees with the Plaintiff that sections 1-4 and 16-311 of the Code of the Township of Middletown (1996) (hereinafter "the Code") allow for the severability of any specific sections or paragraphs that the Court may determine to be ultra vires or otherwise invalid while the remainder of the Code, sections or paragraphs thereof, survive. It is the Township's position that the Court cannot rewrite the Code for the Township, but it can render certain provisions of it invalid as a matter of law.
Given the applicability of the severability provisions contained in the Township's Code, and the fact that the Plaintiff is not challenging the entirety of the Township's conditional use standards (thereby potentially making the proposed use unpermitted), the Intervener's argument that this matter should be remanded to the Zoning Board of Adjustment is misplaced. Further, if based on the previous legal arguments presented by the parties, the Court renders the five paragraphs applied by the Planning Board under section 16-801 invalid, or the entirety of the section itself, the Township submits that the Plaintiffs application is effectively approved.
Accordingly, if the Court grants Plaintiffs motion and determines that section 16-801 is invalid (or the applicable parts thereof), the Court should also grant the Plaintiffs declaratory relief reversing the Planning Board's decision and approving its application without a remand to the Planning Board, which would be a waste of taxpayer time and money.
Respectfully submitted, ARCHER & GREINER
A Professional Corporation
Signed: Brian Nelson
Anon at 10:37
So much for your "knowledge of the courts," huh?
Lol
Post a Comment