Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2010 j Volume 41 No. 11 <br />pliance" with state standards. The court rejected that argument. <br />The court noted that "if the DNR approved ordinances that only <br />partly complied with state standards, landowners and develop- <br />ers would be left to determine which provision were invalid...." <br />Moreover, the Lower St. Croix Act required the BSM Ordinance <br />"comply" with state standards; the Act, said the court, did not au- <br />thorize the DNR to approve a noncomplying statute. In fact, the <br />Act required the DNR to notify the city of, and suggest changes <br />necessary because of, any conflicts between the BSM Ordinance <br />and the State Rule. <br />Case Note: A concurring Justice noted that the threshold question <br />that should have been resolved was: whether the DNR lacked the <br />statutory authority under the Lower St. Croix Act to review the <br />city's decision to grant Haslund the variance. The Justice said that <br />the DNR did lack statutory authority to certify local government <br />variance decisions. <br />Nonconforming use —Store operator seeks <br />- variance for "expansion of a nonconforming <br />) use," combining two separate nonconforming <br />uses <br />Property owner challenges variance grant, saying proposed <br />project was for a "new use" <br />Citation: Saadala v. East Brunswick Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 412 <br />N.J. Super. 541, 991 A.2d 866 (App. Div. 2010) <br />NEW JERSEY (04/22/10)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />an application for a use variance to redevelop two separate noncon- <br />forming uses for a convenience store and retail gasoline station into <br />a combined convenience store and retail gasoline station constituted: <br />(1) an expansion of a nonconforming use (subject to more liberal stan- <br />dards for a use variance); or (2) a new use (subject to more restrictive <br />standards for a use variance). <br />The Background/Facts: 7-Eleven operated a legal, pre-existing non- <br />conforming convenience store use on a lot in the township. <br />A Shell gasoline station had operated as a legal, pre-existing non- <br />conforming use on the lot immediately adjacent to the 7-Eleven. The <br />station included four gasoline pumps and a service building. <br />Around March 2007, Shell closed its station and removed the <br />pumps. <br />© 2010 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />169 <br />