A note from Marylou Ferrara and the rest of our team Dear Friends and Neighbors, As we approach the final (finally!) CVS hearing, we need to address the costs of being represented by an attorney. To review, we retained our lawyer, Jeff Baron on September 25, 2015. Yes, this has been hanging over our heads for over a year… Our original estimate was that the cost would be $5,000 for the entire hearing process which, under normal circumstances, should have been a maximum of two full nights of hearings. Unfortunately for us, CVS has been such a moving target, constantly changing its application and the specifics of the variance requests, that we will have had to sit through, and bear the cost of, eight nights of hearings. Through neighbor-to-neighbor outreach, we have so far raised over $9,000 but we will still need to cover approximately $11,000 once all is said and done. This will include work by Jeff Baron, and our licensed professional planner, Peter Steck. (We have 292 signatures on this petition. If each individual donated $38 we would easily cover all the fees!) As most of you know by now, the work of our planner and lawyer has been to demonstrate, in a quasi-judicial process, that the CVS application doesn’t qualify to receive a (d-1) variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55d-70(d). Although it is generally a heavy lift to make the proofs necessary to get a variance under the statute, CVS has demonstrated its willingness to spend a lot of money on lawyers, planners, traffic engineers, state highway traffic lights, sound experts, and others to argue in favor of suspending the town’s zoning rules for its own benefit. Without an objectors' attorney and planning testimony of our own, we would have had a hard time rebutting their experts and proving to the Zoning Board that the applicant didn’t make their case. (For those who want to read the standard of proof to warrant a variance, I attach it below.) We hope you will consider making another donation to the work that we have all invested in to preserve the quality of life in our neighborhood. If you cannot write a check this month because of the holidays, we would gratefully accept a pledge to pay in January. Of course, if you have any questions, please reach out to any one of us. Thank you so much. See you Wednesday evening at 6pm, Marylou Ferrara Jim McGuire Robert Warznak Catherine J. Fulmer-Hogan Jaclyn Petrin N.J.S.A. 40:55d-70(d) authorizes zoning boards to grant use variances in particular cases for special reasons. This is known as “positive criteria”. The term “special reasons” has been interpreted by the New Jersey courts to mean that granting the proposed variance must promote one or more of the purposes of zoning as set forth at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2 (a) through (o). The zoning board must also confirm that: (a) granting the variance will promote the public good because the proposed use is particularly well suited to the proposed location; and (b) granting the variance is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance. (According to case law, the purpose of this “enhanced quality of proof” is to “satisfactorily reconcile the grant of a use variance with the ordinance’s continued omission of the proposed use from those permitted in the zone”.) In all use variance applications the applicant must also satisfy the “negative criteria” by proving, usually through a site plan review, that the requested variance can be granted: (c) without substantial detriment to the public good, and (d) without substantially impairing the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance.