MIDDLESEX TWP — The developer for the proposed Grey Hawk PRD argues that township supervisors failed to meet a required decision deadline and lacked legal grounds for their denial.

Both arguments are contained in an appeal filed earlier this month by the developer, Grey Hawk L.P., following denial of the plan by Middlesex Township supervisors earlier this year.

Supervisors denied the proposed 108-unit development on March 20 after a series of heated public meetings in which residents expressed their opposition to the plan.

In its decision, the board later cited a potential threat to Glade Run Lake and the developers' decision not to present an alternative plan to the planning commission in their decision to deny tentative approval of the plan.

Grey Hawk L.P. appealed that decision on two grounds.

The company first argued that the township failed to make a decision within the required deadline. Second, it argued that the Grey Hawk plan met township ordinances and that the supervisors lacked valid reasons to deny it.

The developer contends the board missed the decision deadline required by the state Municipalities Planning Code, or MPC, and should, therefore, be reversed.According to the MPC, municipalities have 180 days to approve or deny a plan once the application has been filed. The developer said it submitted its land use application to the board Sept. 11, giving the board until March 10 to make a decision.The township voted to deny the plan March 20, 10 days after the deadline, and did not officially adopt its decision and reasoning until April 3, according to the appeal.Grey Hawk L.P. argues that because of this, the board's decision was moot and approval for the plan should be granted.

Even if the MPC deadline had been met, Grey Hawk L.P. contends that the township lacked valid reasons to deny the development, as the plan met township codes and ordinances.In its decision to deny the plan, the township cited Grey Hawk's failure to present an alternative plan to the planning commission before sending it to supervisors for consideration.This alternative plan was created after the planning commission denied a modification included in the original plan. This modification would have allowed the developer to build 10 carriage homes containing 20 units along a cul-de-sac. This is four more than allowed by township ordinances.The commission did however approve the conditional use for the plan, despite rejecting the modification.The developer then drew up an alternative plan which reconfigured which lots would contain single family homes and which contained carriage homes, or duplexes. This allowed the developer to maintain the same number of units without needing a modification.Grey Hawk said the alternative plan was later sent to supervisors at the suggestion of Travis Cavanaugh, township manager.According to Grey Hawk L.P., Cavanaugh recommended that the developer include an alternative plan in its presentation to the board. This second plan would not require a modification and could be chosen by the board if it also declined to grant the modification included in the original plan.Grey Hawk L.P. cited a letter it sent to the township following these discussions.Developers said denying the plan for the very actions that were recommended by township officials showed an “abuse of discretion.” The company argues that it met all requirements for approval as far as it was concerned, but was still denied a permit in the end. Cavanaugh was not immediately available for comment.

In its decision, the township also cited residents' concerns that the development would have a negative impact on the area and pose a threat to Glade Run Lake. Residents submitted a letter by a professional ornithologist saying the water runoff from the development could damage to the lake's ecosystem.Grey Hawk L.P. argued that the township provided no evidence proving that the development posed a threat to the area and also provided no evidence calculating how likely it was that any potential damage might occur. According to the appeal, the resident objections relied on speculation. The developer cited passages in the ornithologist's letter, in which the author says the development “certainly has the potential” to adversely affect the lake.Grey Hawk L.P. said this and other objections by residents made no effort to prove that such impacts were likely and, therefore, did not meet legal standards to warrant a denial.Township solicitor Mike Hnath was not immediately available to comment.