Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 3 2006, BPG filed with the township's planning board (the "Board ") an application for preliminary site plan approval. BPG proposed construc- tion of eight buildings, as well as other improvements, on its property. On May 29, 2008, the Board approved BPG's preliminary site plan. On September 27, 2008, BPG caused to be published in a daily news- paper, notice of the site plan approval. On October 2, 2008, the Board republished notice of the site plan ap- proval in another, weekly newspaper. In October, Sheila Fields, a member of Hopewell Valley Citizens' Group, Inc. ( "Citizens "), inquired with the Board as to "when and where the Notice of Decision had been published to calculate the time for filing an appeal." The Board's secretary informed Fields that notice had been published on October 2, 2008. Fields then calculated the 45 -day period within which to appeal the Board's approval of BPG's site plan. New Jersey Court Rules, Rule 4:69 requires appeals from planning board decisions be brought within "45 days from publication of a notice once in the official newspaper of the municipality or a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality )J On November 17, 2008, Citizens filed in court a complaint against BPG and the township, challenging the site plan approval. BPG and the township urged the court to dismiss the case. Among other things, they argued that Citizens' complaint was "untimely." The complaint had been filed within 45 days of the date the Board caused notice of the site plan approval to be published. However, it had been filed more than 45 days after the first publication —when BPG caused notice of the site plan approval to be published. Citizens argued that the representation of the date of publication made by the Board's Secretary "justified enlargement of the limitations period." Rule 4:69 -6(c) provided that: "The court may enlarge the pe- riod of time [to appeal local land use decisions] where it is manifest that the interest of justice so requires." The trial court disagreed with Citizens, as did the Appellate Division. Citizens again appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Matter remanded. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that Citizens was entitled to an extension of the deadline to file the appeal. The court held that "the circumstances presented in this case satisf[ied] the standards in Rule 4:69 -6(c) and warrant[ed] enlargement of the forty -five day period be- cause `it is manifest that the interest of justice so requires. "' The court interpreted Rule 4:69 - 6(c) as allowing it discretion to en- large a timeframe for filing an appeal of a local land use decision when the court "perceives a clear potential for injustice." The court found the © 2011 Thomson Reuters 7