Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin could regulate not only "width, length, and height," but also a building's "gross floor area." Moreover, the court found that interpreting $ 3 in that way fulfilled the purposes of zoning and preserved the legislature's policies: It allowed towns to regulate density of population and intensity of use; and it discouraged snob zoning (a prohibition on houses of mini- mum sizes) and encouraged housing for persons of all income levels. See also: Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444, 190 N.E. 606 (1934). See also: Smith v. Board of Appeals of Brookline, 366 Mass. 197, 316 N~E.2d 501 (1974). Case Note: In its decision, the court also concluded that the town bylaw's prohibition on the use of attic space and cellars for habita- tion for a certain "waiting period" did not violate $ 3. The court said that under S 3 the town could have properly included attics and cellars in the gross floor area for purposes of calculating the floor- to-area ratio. The town's decision not to was actually a "bonus" for home owners, not a restriction, said the court. Moreover, the court found the bylaw's "waiting period" for conversion of attics or cel- lars to habitable space furthered the purposes of zoning because it-~') discouraged developers from building housing out of scale with oth- ers in the neighborhood. Conflict of Interest-Board member's father is affiliated with developer Resident challenges member's participation in developer's variance application Citation: Meyer v. MW Red Bank, LLC, 401 N.J. Super. 482, 951 A.2d. 1060 (App. Div. 2008) NEW JERSEY (07/21108)-MW Red Bank, LLC (MW) owned land in the borough. it sought to demolish existing buildings and construct. a mixed use development. Because the proposed development required variances, MW filed a variance application. with the borough's zoning board (the Board). After the Board granted MW's variance application, William Meyer, who was a. resident in the town, filed a legal action against the Board. Meyer alleged that the variance was invalid because one of the Board's members had a disqualifying conflict of interest. 4 @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 76 -, \ I j. j i .j i I I I I I I 1 i i ! ! j l I ! I. 1 t I I I I 1 I I I I