Council mulls appeal of MU expansion approval

BY SUE MORGAN
Staff Writer

West Long Branch It seems Joseph and Pamela Hughes might be heading to a Freehold courtroom with a few borough officials in tow if they appeal the West Long Branch Zoning Board of Adjustment’s decision to let Monmouth University expand its facilities.

The couple, who reside across Pinewood Avenue from the site where the university received preliminary site plan approval to construct a 126-space parking lot as part of an overall expansion plan, are glad to hear that the Borough Council joins them in their disappointment over the Zoning Board’s 5-1 vote sanctioning the construction.

In fact, Joseph Hughes was clearly elated when Borough Attorney Gregory Baxter stated at the Sept. 7 Borough Council meeting that the governing body might indeed appeal the board’s Aug. 31 decision to the state Superior Court in Freehold.

Mayor John Paolantonio and the six-member council have not yet seen a copy of the resolution granting numerous bulk and use variances and preliminary site plan approval to the university because the document has yet to be composed, Baxter explained after Hughes spoke during the council meeting’s public portion.

In fact, that resolution probably will not be on paper until the Zoning Board holds its regular meeting later this month, he said.

“The resolution doesn’t exist yet,” Baxter said.

However, Paolantonio and the council did discuss the zoners’ decision in an executive session earlier that evening, and voiced concerns about the approvals, Baxter noted.

“The mayor and council are disturbed and disappointed by the board’s decision,” Baxter said. “The consensus is to look at the resolution when it comes in.”

Once the printed resolution is received by council members, the governing body can collectively choose whether or not to appeal the board’s decision, Baxter told Hughes.

“That hasn’t been decided, but it will be discussed,” he said.

Hughes, president of the West Long Branch Coalition of Neighbors, a grassroots organization dedicated to retaining open space in the vicinity of Pinewood, Beechwood, Hollywood and Brookwillow avenues, presented Paolantonio with petitions bearing the names of 106 residents of that area asking the council to appeal the zoners’ decision.

Those neighbors, about fifteen of whom testified during the Aug. 31 hearing on the university’s application, are concerned about possible flooding in their basements resulting from a two-and-a-half-acre detention basin the private institution has approval to build on the site of the former Kilkare Farm between Beechwood and Hollywood avenues.

In addition, the neighbors believe the council should appeal because three of the five board members who voted affirmatively are Monmouth graduates and should have recused themselves from hearing the application to begin with, Hughes told Paolantonio and the council.

Those board members — board Chairman Rocco Christopher, Robert Springman and Irvin Miller — are all previous council appointees who displayed a conflict of interest by even listening to their alma mater’s application, Hughes asserted.

”They should not have been sitting up there and voting on that application,” Hughes said. “They were pro-university from the start.”

Hughes, who stated immediately following the board’s vote that he intends to appeal the board’s decision, urged the mayor and council to consider appointing newcomers who might not have served on the borough’s planning, zoning or other advisory boards before to those posts.

Many of the current members of advisory boards have held those posts long-term and prevented new appointments from people “eminently qualified who are willing to serve,” Hughes pointed out.

“I’m asking the council to fight with us on this and to look for fresh faces for the Zoning Board,” Hughes said.

Once received in borough offices, the resolution detailing the approval and conditions pertaining to Monmouth University must then be published in the borough’s designated newspapers before the council can file an appeal in state Superior Court, Baxter explained.

Upon publication, the council or anyone seeking to appeal has 45 days to file such action.

“The decision has not been made [to appeal], but there is a strong feeling to do so,” Baxter said.

Baxter would not elaborate as to what grounds the governing body might base an appeal on.

Hughes, meanwhile, who hired Long Branch attorney James Siciliano to represent him during the 19 months that the university’s application was before the board, is planning to raise the perceived conflict of interest in state Superior Court.

Through Siciliano, Hughes testified that excess lighting and noise coming from the new on-campus parking lot would prove to be a nuisance that disrupts his quality of life.

In rendering their decision, the board attached a laundry list of conditions that the university must meet to obtain final site plan approval.

With the preliminary site plan and variances, the university can move ahead with the first steps toward constructing the parking lot and a three-story, 196-bed residence hall on the campus’ north end adjacent to Pinewood Avenue.

The preliminary site plan also calls for construction of six tennis courts, an adjacent 20-space parking lot, and the detention basin.

If the council chooses to appeal the board decision, it might contest the entire expansion, including the new dormitory and 126-space lot, or just the section involving the former farm, Baxter said.

All of the spaces to be built on are in a residential R-22 zone, necessitating the need for variances, according to testimony presented to the Zoning Board.

The neighbors that have opposed the controversial application, like Hughes, have claimed quality-of-life concerns and indicated that the university has grown beyond its boundaries to the detriment of their neighborhood.