75-Unit Apartment Complex Plans Challenged By Mendham Nonprofit In Court

MENDHAM, NJ — A Mendham non-profit has filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey to appeal the Borough’s decision to build an apartment complex, citing preservation, public safety, and environmental concerns.

The Mendham Alliance for Preservation and Conservation (MAPC), along with the New Jersey Highlands Coalition, has filed suit against the Mendham Borough Joint Land Use Board.

Specifically, the suit is looking to appeal the Board’s approval of a five-story, 75-unit apartment complex at the Mendham Village Shopping Center. The apartment complex, 20 percent of which will be set aside for affordable housing, is to be built behind Kings Market on East Main Street, replacing the tennis courts.

Read More: New 75-Unit Housing Development Back On Table For Mendham

The MAPC brief does not request that the complex’s development be halted specifically, but claims that the Board “failed to follow required legal steps under New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) and the Borough’s own ordinances.”

MAPC highlighted the following reasons for its concern over the development:

• The Board did not act independently
• The Board approved before confirming compliance
• Stormwater issues reported by the borough engineer were not resolved
• No pedestrian safety analysis was conducted
• The environmental impact statement was incomplete
• Public participation was restricted

“This case is not about whether development should occur,” MAPC said. “If the Board failed to make required findings or prematurely approved the project, the Court must reverse or remand the decision — regardless of policy preferences.”

Some of MAPC’s specific environmental concerns relate to the Raritan River and the millions of NJ residents who depend on it for drinking water. The nonprofit insists that oversized developments, like the proposed five-story complex, increase stormwater runoff, pollution, and erosion, “endangering water quality and creating long-term restoration challenges.”

Another concern the MAPC has was the Board’s “reliance” on more than 130 conditions regarding the site’s stormwater feasibility, environmental impact, circulation, and operational design.” It says the reliance on conditions “demonstrates (the Board’s) failure to perform the statutorily required review.”

To view the entire suit and a brief from MAPC, click here.

Patch has reached out to Board representatives, who were not immediately available for comment.