Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

(~~ (~--\ I I , i January 10, 20081 Volume 21 No.1 a right-of-way known as Woolsey Lane, he did not show that this access satisfied the code. Seiden sued the board in court, claiming that its decision was arbitrary. The lower court found in favor of the board, and Se- iden appealed. - DECISION: Affirmed. The appeals court noted first that local zoning boards had broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and judicial re- view was limited to deteFmining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion. The appeals court found that the lower court did not err when it found that the board's decision was supported by evidence in the record. Seiden did not establish that Woolsey Lane was a qualify- ing "street or highway" that satisfied the access requirement in the code. On the tax map, Woolsey Lane was referred to only as "Right of Way." The only evidence supporting that Wool- sey Lane was an access road and providing the dimensions and other ch;uacteristics of the lane were survey maps prepared by Seiden's architect. Therefore, Seiden failed to prove that Woolsey Lane was "an ex- isting Village, county or state highway or street" or that it was a- street shown on "an approved subdivision final plat" or a "map filed with county clerk." Further, the appeals court stated that the board was not required to find that Seiden's access to a public street, via the right of way, was sufficient to satisfy the access re- quirement of the code. Significantly, Seiden did not own Woolsey Lane and he did not show that he had the right to use those portions of the lane that did not abut his property to gain access to the public road. The appeals court noted that, although the record revealed that there were a number of nonconforming, substandard lots in the area, he failed to show that the owners of any of them were granted area variances after the enactment of the existing code. The appeals court held that the lower court properly upheld the _ board's determination denying the requested variances, because it had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. Appeal-Neighbor challenges plan to build retail despite setback infringement Building would be less than two feet from property line Citation: Babel, LLP v. Planning Bd. of City of Clifton, 2007 WL 4245102 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007) 3 119