Laserfiche WebLink
<br />April 25, 20091 Volume 3 I No.8 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />did not satisfy either of those categories. Therefore they were "statutorily <br />unauthorized. " <br /> <br />See also: In re CAPRA Permit No. 87-0959-5 Issued to Gateway Associ- <br />ates, 152 N.J. 287, 704 A.2d 1261 (1997). <br /> <br />See also: Cooper Univ. Hasp. v. Jacobs, 191 N.J. 125, 922 A.2d 731 <br />(2007). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court emphasized that it did not intend to "suggest <br />in any way limitations on DEP's ability to enter into a settlement <br />agreement to resolve many of the sundries affecting a permit, such <br />as modifications and conditions, so long as the agency's actions d[id] <br />not waylay its eventual 'permit' authorization." However, the court <br />emphasized that except for specified statutory exceptions, the Legis- <br />latUre had made clear that a "permit" was required for development <br />in New Jersey's coastal region. <br /> <br /> <br />. 12 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />40 <br /> <br />,.r""--""",_ <br /> <br />'~--'"' <br />) <br /> <br />j <br />-/. <br />