Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008

Home

I I I j j I I j I 1 j I i I ! September 25,20081 Volume 21 No. 18 '.-~'."- J :i 1! i I' ,I !j !I il " II 'I II 'I I I \ j J j l ! V A provision in the CPA (N.].S.A. 40A:27-6.7) directed that a com- pleted land use application was automatically deemed approved if the county planning board failed to take official action within thirty days, or within siXty days if both the municipal planning board and the applicant ,consented to a thirty-day extension. The CPA did not provide an exten- sion of those time limits. The trial judge ruled in Hess's favor, declaring Hess's application au- tomatically approved. The Board appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling. The Board asked the Supre~e Court of New Jersey to take the case, and it did. DECISION: Affirmed. The court concluded that due to the Board's inaction, Hess's applica- tion Was automatically approved under the CPA. In reaching its conclusion, the court said that the statlgory timetables providing for automatic approval must be strictly enforced, except where delay is: (1) inadvertent, such as with a technical mistake like omitting the place of a board meeting or misfiling an application; or (2) uninten- tional, such as a reasonable misapprehension regarding whether there was a complete application pending before a board. The Board had argued that automatic approval of Hess's application was inappropriate because it obtained an extension from Hess. The court rejected that argument. The court emphasized that the CPA required ap- proval of an extension from both the municipality and Hess. The court found the Board's argument failed because: (1) the Board did not request an extension from the municipality; and (2) Hess could not unilaterally extend the time for the Board to act. Moreover, the court noted that even if the township and Hess had agreed to a 3D-day extension pursuant to the CPA, that would have only provided an extension until October 2005, The court also rejected the Board's argument that since it acted in good faith, it was entitled to delay its decision until it obtained addition- al information it requested from Hess, regardless of the statutory time limits. The court said that where a board failed to act within the statu- tory time limits, even for what it considered "good". reasons, the stat- -ute wa1? violated and automatic approval came into play. The court said that once an application was deemed complete, a planning board had to act within the thirty days irrespective of the information sought or revi- sions requested. Moreover, noted the court, if the inforination sought by the Board was not forthcoming, the application could have been granted without it, or denied for lack of it. @ 2008 'Thomson ReutersIWest 9 81