Township Caught In Continued Litigation With Lacey Town Village

The township has filed a legal cross-motion against Lacey Town Village, a non-age-restricted housing development proposed at Laurel Boulevard and Route 9.

The due to various unanswered questions and the made to improve the plans, resulting in a court order.

Lacey Town Village was originally approved as age-restricted housing in 2005. The applicant re-approached the Planning Board with modified plans because legislation (S2577 1R) passed by Gov. Jon Corzine in July 2009 allowed developers to challenge towns over the age-restricted status of pending developments.

With 84 units (67 market rate units and 17 affordable units), some with the potential for three bedrooms, the development had 44 parking spaces planned. No on-street parking would have been allowed, because the development’s network of streets is 24 feet wide. The development would have had a 1,503-square-foot community center with a capacity of 139 people and 10 parking spaces.

The first hearing, held in July, laid out the legal issues. in an attempt to speed up the trial because they believe the board did not act in accordance with the Conversion Act, Planning Board Attorney Joseph Coronato said.

Lacey Town Village was granted the motion.

“The court ruled that the applicant was entitled to have the conversion. Even though that’s granted, now the question is under what condition is the applicant entitled to that,” Coronato said.

The township has since filed a cross-motion, which is currently pending, to have the court’s decision reconsidered.

“There are a variety of issues that have not been resolved,” Coronato said.

With unresolved issues regarding damages, construction, and more, the township wonders what conditions the development should be and should not be approved, even under the Conversion Act, Coronato said.

Since the township still has issues with the conditions of Lacey Town Village, there will be continued litigation for weeks to come, he said.

At some point, the court may ask both parties to sit down to resolve the conflict, Coronato said.

“To say the least, it’s complicated. It’s not something that can be resolved anytime soon,” he said.

Until then,

The site plan and stream encroachment permit were approved five years ago when the development was originally going to be age-restricted. These approvals remain valid according to the Permit Extension Act, DEP Spokesperson Larry Hajna previously said.

Because those approvals remain valid, the DEP is allowing the site owner to continue development, Quinn previously said.

The Planning Board previously allowed the applicant to move forward on Lacey Town Village due to the Stream Encroachment permit that would soon expire.

The applicant can only complete the drainage unless they decide to revert back to their old plans of the age-restricted development. Then they can continue development.

If they move forward with non-age restricted housing, the site owner can only complete the drainage. Further development and construction could not begin until the issue is solved in court, Quinn said.