Summary  

We, the neighbors of the Orange Lawn Tennis Club, oppose the development of twenty seven (27) townhouses on a sloped four acre parcel of the historic Club.  This dense development is out of character to the single-family detached neighborhood in which the Club sits and is inconsistent with the Village's Master Plan.  In addition, this development will lead to increased traffic and water runoff in the surrounding area.  South Orange, by proposed ordinance, is facilitating this development unless we stop it.   We ask that you support our efforts by signing the petition and/or get involved in organizing against the ordinance.   For more information please email us at OLTCNeighbors@gmail.com

Background

On January 12, 2015, the South Orange Board of Trustees unanimously approved a “first reading” of a revised zoning ordinance for the PRC-B district. This district contains only one property, the Orange Lawn Tennis Club. The revised ordinance will allow a combination of clustered housing and private recreation facilities. The approval was then transmitted to the South Orange Planning Board for their consideration of whether the revised ordinance conforms to the South Orange Master Plan. The February 2, 2015 meeting of the Planning Board was postponed because of the weather. This petition is to demonstrate to the Planning Board South Orange resident opposition to the revised ordinance. Please review the petition and if in agreement sign this petition by filling in the fields to the right of this petition. Thank you for your participation.

Note: If you are agreement with this petition but prefer to sign a printed version and not provide your information on this change.org page, then email OLTCNeighbors@gmail.com. 

Petition

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the proposed ordinance change in Ordinance 2015-02. We are neighbors of block 1304 lot 6 (The Orange Lawn Tennis Club) and we are in opposition to the proposed ordinance. While we have a number of issues with the Club's plans as we know them, the focus of this petition is on two areas of immediate review by the Planning Board:

• The proposed ordinance does not conform with the Town's Master Plan; and
• This is a radical use of spot zoning and is inappropriate and wrong.

Lack of Conformance to the Master Plan

As you know, the 1975 New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law defines the responsibilities of the local Planning Board. The power to adopt the Master Plan is solely the Planning Board's.

Over the years some of you and your predecessors ably did their job and the 2004 Recreation Element of the Land Use Master Plan referenced in the 2007 Master Plan clearly indicates that the PRC-B designation in 1992 was a political decision to meet the town's affordable housing goals. Prior to the PRC-B designation, block 1304 lot 6, owned by the Orange Lawn Tennis Club was zoned like the rest of the neighborhood as RA-100, i.e. Single-Family Detached Residential. This PRC-B designation, as the 2004 document attests, did not accomplish its goals and we quote “the Village did not receive any credit toward meeting its fair share calculation based on the overlay zoning.” However it has remained with that designation ever since as a sore thumb as the Zoning and Redevelopment Districts Map demonstrates.

The Recreation Element clearly recommends that block 1304 lot 6 be re-zoned as a private recreational facility in order to preserve it from “development as housing” We are a  neighborhood of single-family detached homes. Not town houses, not multi-family clustered housing but single-family detached homes. This proposed ordinance is an assault on our neighborhood.

The question for the Board is whether the proposed ordinance complies with the Master Plan. A plain reading of both documents clearly indicate that the proposed ordinance does not comply with the Master Plan and we urge you to come to that decision and inform the Village Trustees within the time frame of your statutory obligation.

Inappropriate Spot Zoning

We have heard and read suggestions that the Proposed Ordinance is merely a “clarification” of the existing ordinance. Nothing could be further from the truth and we ask that you objectively look at the language. As you may be aware, in 2013, the Club placed 4 of its 16 acres for sale. The offering document listed this land as an “Excess Land Parcel”. This parcel being the very land that the Club in the variance granted for its catering facility, agreed to be used for overflow parking. However, the Club eventually realized that the property could not be sub-divided in this fashion and that correspondence from a Village Trustee indicated to us; “right now it is all or nothing – [the] club has to remain or sell the full property.” If the existing PRC-B designation gave the Club the flexibility to have both a recreation facility and clustered housing why is there a need for a new ordinance? We think the answer is clear. The proposed ordinance is a fundamental restructuring of a private parcel for the sole benefit of that private party out of conformance with the neighborhood in which it sits.

We submit to the Board that this is a classic case of spot zoning. The defining characteristic of spot zoning is the narrowness and unjustified nature of the benefit to a particular property  owner to the detriment of a general land use plan. Courts have found spot zoning to be illegal. There is only one property in the PRC-B district. There is only one beneficiary of this Proposed Ordinance and they are being given special treatment for unknown reasons. Any such clustered development is wildly out of character to our single-family detached  neighborhood and the RA-100 zone.

Overall Public Sentiment Against Development

A survey was done recently in the neighborhood concerning development at the Club. Over one hundred people responded. While 95% knew where the Club is located only one-third knew of the planned development. When those who knew something about the plans were asked if they were in favor, only one in approximately eight people said they were. We all have an obligation to let people, these property owners and voters, know about these proposals. In our judgment, to date, much of this process has been taking place behind closed doors and false reassurances being given instead of hard facts. We are committed to an open process and are getting the word out to other Town residents. We trust that officials given responsibility for making these decisions are committed to this as well.