The company that is under contract to purchase part of the Eatontown, N.J. club and turn it into a commercial complex contends that political collusion led to an unreasonable decision that ignored potential benefits to the community.
Eatontown Ventures LLC, the developer seeking to turn part of the Old Orchard Country Club in Eatontown, N.J. into a commercial complex, has filed a $50 million lawsuit against the borough, the Asbury Park Press reported. The lawsuit contends that recent rejection of Eatontown Ventures’ development plan by the borough’s Planning Board was unreasonable, ignored its potential benefits to the community and was the result of political collusion.
Paul H. Schneider of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, a Red Bank, N.J. law firm, filed the lawsuit in Monmouth County Superior Court on behalf of Eatontown Ventures on December 19, the Press reported. Eatontown Ventures is under contract to purchase 124 acres of the privately owned, 135-acre, 18-hole club, which dates to 1929 and features an A.W. Tillinghast-designed golf course.
The lawsuit seeks $50 million in damages and an order reversing the Planning Board’s rejection of an amendment to the borough’s land use plan that would have cleared the way for the proposed development, the Press reported. It also seeks a declaration that the low-density, residential zoning designation for the southern portion of the property’s tract is null and void, along with an order that would rezone that area for commercial use.
The suit alleges that Councilman-elect Kevin Gonzalez and Richard “Duke” Robinson, Republicans who campaigned and won election on a platform opposed to development of the country club, colluded with the planning board members who voted against it, demanding that they defeat the proposal in order to keep their seats on the board, the Press reported.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the borough, the mayor and council, the Planning Board, and Planning Board members Mark Regan (who also is a councilman), Mark Woloshin, Dan Drury, Cathy Silva and Edmund Fitterer Jr.
Schneider said the named Planning Board members are those who voted against a proposal to amend the borough’s land-use plan to provide for open space and commercial development on the country club property, the Press reported.
Contacted for comment by the Press, Regan replied with an e-mail that said, “I would love to give you a comment on the frivolous and libelous lawsuit brought on the Eatontown Planning Board, but I believe the borough attorney may advise me not to.
“I will tell you that I don’t think we should be bullied by a developer through a lawsuit to change our town and affect the lives of residents,” Regan added.
Robinson, Gonzalez, and Fitterer declined to comment on the lawsuit. Attempts to reach Woloshin, Drury and Silva for comment were unsuccessful, the Press reported.
According to the borough’s code, the mayor appoints seven of the Planning Board’s nine members and also sits on the board, while the borough council selects one of its members to represent it on the board, the Press reported.
Mayor Gerald Tarantolo, a Democrat who supported the redevelopment proposal, told the Press that he wasn’t surprised by the lawsuit, but added, “I was shocked at the number: 50 million [dollars].’’
Despite the fact the borough has insurance to cover it against lawsuits, “this certainly will be a cost to the borough and the taxpayers,” the mayor said.
The borough would likely be on the hook for a portion of the damages not covered by insurance, as well as for legal fees, Tarantolo said.
The proposed “non-residential open space cluster amendment,” as it was known, was defeated by a 5-to-3 vote of the Planning Board on December 9, the Press reported.
Tarantolo said he favored the proposed development as a way to help keep tax increases to a minimum while preserving open space. About 50 area residents, however, attended the meeting at which the amendment was defeated, voicing objections to it and applauding when it was voted down, the Press reported.
The amendment would have allowed for commercial development of no more than 60 acres on the southern side of the country club tract, with the provision that at least 75 acres adjacent to residential neighborhoods be permanently preserved as open space, the Press reported. It would have allowed for 350,000 to 450,000 square feet of commercial floor space, according to the lawsuit.
In addition, the amendment would have required the developer to make a number of improvements in the area, including major enhancements to roadways and key intersections.
Tarantolo said the partners who own the country club want to sell it because the golf course has been losing money for years, the Press reported. Existing zoning allows for the property to be used as a golf course or for mansions, he added, and he doesn’t believe there is a market for mansions on property abutting a corridor along New Jersey Route 36 that is already commercialized.
In rejecting the amendment, the lawsuit alleges, the Planning Board ignored testimony that the proposed development would have brought a net increase of $1.5 million a year in tax revenues into the borough’s coffers, while low-density housing that is allowed under the existing zoning would result in a negative fiscal impact to the borough of $500,000 a year.
The Planning Board’s defeat of the land-use amendment was “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable,” and “contrary to sound land use planning,” according to the complaint. The low-density housing designation for the southern portion of the land abutting Route 36 is inappropriate, it added.
Those who voted against the amendment, the lawsuit contens, did so for their own personal interests or that of an organization to which they belong, “without regard to sound planning principles, proper zoning or the positive financial impact that the (amendment) would have for the borough or the interest of the residents of Eatontown.”
Planning Board attorney Mark Steinberg said he could not yet comment on the lawsuit, the Press reported.
While the lawsuit alleges that Gonzalez and Robinson colluded with Republican members of the Planning Board to defeat the amendment “to promote the interests of [the] Eatontown GOP organization,” two of the Board members who voted against it and are named as defendants in the lawsuit, Silva and Woloshin, are listed in voter-registration records as Democrats, the Press reported.
On August 26, 2013, the Planning Board also rejected an alternate proposal for the same property, the Press reported, voting down an amendment to the land-use plan that would have allowed the same developer to build a commercial complex along with 175 units of housing for people 55 and older.
But because the developer’s later proposal was also rejected, the lawsuit seeks to reinstitute the housing component, the Press reported. The complaint asks for orders declaring that the senior housing is necessary for the borough to meet its legal obligations to provide affordable housing.
The developer tried to be fair and reasonable by eliminating the housing component of the proposal and instead designating that land as open space, Schneider told the Press. But because that proposal was rejected, “they may as well develop every square inch,” he said.
Tell Us What You Think!
You must be logged in to post a comment.