Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin under a conditional use permit, the standards for obtaining a conditional use permit under the town's zoning ordinance were not specific enough to say that a landowner was entitled to a conditional use once standards were satisfied. The court said those standards, which included require- ments to protect property values and preserve natural growth and cover, were subject to significant interpretation. Further, the cooo found no language in the ordinance that created an entitlement to a conditional use permit. See also: Sheerr v. Evesham Tp., 184 N.J. Super. 11,445 A.2d 46 (Law Div. 1982). See also: Dur-Bar Realty Co. v~ City of Utica, 57 A.D.2d 51, 394 N.YS.2d 913 (4th Dep't 1977), order affd, 44 N.Y2d 1002, 408 N. YS.2d 502, 380 N.E.2d 328 (1978). Case Note: The court noted that there could be limited circumstanc- es where a "no permitted uses" zone would be constitutional: where the restriction bore a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals-or _general welfare. The court said an example- of a ccinstitu- tional"no permitted use" zone was one that restricted uses on land - in a flood - pfOne area. Tn that case, the court said restrictions were related to flood safety and thus satisfied the, necessary relationship to the public health, safety, morals or gen-eral welfare. Case Note: The court distinguished that planned unit developments districts could eliminate all permitted uses because they were estab- lished with the consent of the landowner, while the landowners in the town's B-2 District did not make a choice to eliminate all per- mitted uses. - Case Note: On appeal, the court also concluded that the circuit court improperly applied the law when it dismissed the town'snui- sance claims. The court remanded the issue. 4 @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 98 \ J ') )