Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2010

Home

February 10, 2010 'Volume 41 No. 3 Zoning Bulletin uses of land in the various districts established by the ordinances." (See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62). "Where a use is not permitted by the zoning or- dinance, [the MLUL] permits applicants to seek use variances from the board of adjustment." (N.J.S.A. 40:55-D70d). Therefore, if a use variance is required to provide authorization for a development project, the board of adjustment alone has the power to grant any other approvals that may be required, including site plan approval. (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-76(b)). In oth- er words, "the board of adjustment has the exclusive authority to grant site plan approval `whenever the proposed development requires approval by the board of adjustment of a [use] variance."' The court said that ex- clusive authority could not be "circumvented by an applicant simply de- clining to apply for a use variance." Thus, here, because a use variance was required, the Board could not grant the 1989 Approval. Because a use variance was required, any such approval could come only from the board of adjustment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment in fa- vor of the Najduchs. See also: PRB Enterprises, Inc. v. South Brunswick Planning Bd., 105 N.J. 1, 518 A.2d 1099 (1987). See also: Hill Homeowners Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Passaic, 129 N.J. Super. 170, 322 A.2d 501 (Law Div. 1974), judgment aff'd, 134 N.J. Super. 107, 338 A.2d 824 (App. Div. 1975). Case Note: Owen had also argued that the Najduchs' challenge to the validity of the 1989 Approval was untimely. Owen cited to the 45-day limitation period governing an action to review a municipal agency determination. The court disagreed. It said that an action that was utterly void was subject to collateral attack at any time. Since the Najudchs' claim was that the Board's 1989 Approval was void, the 1989 Approval could be collaterally challenged at any time. Conditions —Town board finds application complies "with all applicable requirements of land use ordinance" Board then attaches conditions to conditional use permit Citation: Northwest Property Group, LLC v. Town of Carrboro, 2009 WL 5066913 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) NORTH CAROLINA (12/22/09)—This case addressed the issue of whether a board lost its authority to adopt additional conditions for a conditional use permit after voting that the application for the permit 4 2010 Thomson Reuters 52