Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin . NEW JERSEY (12/0S/07)-MCP Associates, LP, owned a 1.2-acre tract of land in the city of Clifton in a planned development zone. The property contained a single, vacant building that had been used previously as a car dealership. Babel, LLP, owned the build- ing adjacent to the property. The existing structure did not meet several zoning requirements, including the minimum side yard set- back between the property and Bobel's land. MCP sought to demolish part of the existing building and to convert and modernize the remaining portion of the building into a 17,OOO-square foot retail structure, containing five retail stores, which were permitted in the zone. MCP applied to the city plan- ning board for preliminary and final site plan approvals and sev- eral variances and design waivers. While the plan would reduce the number of deviations on the property from the zoning ordi- nance, the part of the building that would remain after demoli- tion was the. wall facing Bobel's property-which was only 1.9 feet away from the property line. The board approved the application, and Bobel filed a complaint in court challenging it. The court affirmed the board's decision and dismissed the case. Bobel appealed only the part of the lower court's decision that affirmed the side yard variance. DECISION: Affirmed. " On appeal, Bobel argued that MCP's application did not meet the requirements for approval under state law, and that the find- ings of the board were insufficient to support its decision. However, court review in an appeal from a decision of a municipal board on zoning and planning matters was limited to determining whether the board's decision was arbitrary, capricious pr unreasonable. The appeals court noted that: "A local board's decision [was] presumed valid, and the party challenging the decision has the bur- den proving otherwise." Further, "in reviewing a local decision, the court must determine whether the board followed the statutory guidelines and properly exercised its discretion." Here, the appeals court found that Bobel had not met its bur- den of showing that the board's action was not valid. In addi- tion, the appeals court found that the record demonstrated that the lower court had properly considered all evidence before it, which supported the finding that the board had not acted arbi- trarily or capriciously. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. 4 120 >-') ) I )