Mahwah October 16, 2013 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • Page 5 Stop Mahwah Mall group appeals Crossroads ruling by Frank J. McMahon The attorney for the Committee to Stop Mahwah Mall has notified the Appellate Division of Superior Court that his clients are appealing the Aug. 23 decision by Superior Court Judge Alexander Carver III, which affirmed the legality of the Mahwah Township ordinance that rezoned the 140-acre International Crossroads property for retail use. Crossroads Developers Associates, LLC plans to con- struct a 600,000 square foot retail center on the site with two big box stores, a 10-plex theater, 200,000 square feet of retail shops along a pedestrian oriented corridor, and an athletic field. The subject property is located at the inter- section of Routes 17 and 287. Michael Kates, the committee’s attorney, lists several issues in his appeal. He asks the court to consider whether Judge Carver erred in failing to discuss and totally disre- garding the “appearance of impropriety” as a basis for nul- lifying the actions of a public official. Kates also asks the court to consider whether Carver erred in disregarding the developer’s disproportionately high, and multi-annual, contributions to a local charity in which a former councilman was a founding trustee and was a trustee at the time of his deciding vote to introduce the ordinance to rezone the Crossroads property, and over the 10 years when Crossroads was making contributions to the charity simultaneously with the development initiatives for the Crossroads project. Finally, Kates asks the court to consider whether the spousal relationship of that former council member was enough to invalidate the councilman’s role on the basis of the “appearance of impropriety,” particularly when that role was challenged at a public meeting and before the disposi- tive vote was taken. Kates points out in his appeal notice that the ordinance to rezone the Crossroads property from office park to retail use was introduced on Feb. 10, 2011 by a 4-3 vote, and adopted on March 31, 2011 by a 4-2 vote, and the plain- tiffs filed their complaint on May 16, 2011, challenging the ordinance on three counts. He explained that two of the three counts were voluntarily withdrawn by the commit- tee, leaving only the count that asserted that John DaPuzzo, who was the president of the township council at the time, should have recused himself from casting the deciding vote to introduce the ordinance when he was asked to do so by a member of the public who is not one of the plaintiffs even though the township attorney sanctioned his participation in the vote. Kates explains that DaPuzzo’s wife was the director of the township’s recreation department at the time, and the Crossroads developer had agreed to set aside acreage to construct a new active recreation area adjacent to the Crossroads retail site. The attorney also advised the court that subsequent to the filing of his client’s complaint in May of 2011, the township’s governing body rescinded the ordinance that rezoned the Crossroads property for retail use. He claims that even though that rescinding ordinance was invalidated by Judge Carver it can be logically inferred that the public interest, as represented by the rescinding ordinance, is in rejecting the retail uses permitted by the rezoning ordinance. In addition, he points out that a recent revision to the township’s master plan is consistent with the reason to reject retail uses and “big box” stores for the sub- ject site. (continued on page 13)