Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Page 4 m November 25, 1998 Z.B. DECISION: Affirmed. There was no evidence the board's denial of the parking variance was ille- gal or arbitrary. The zoning code required the board to balance the benefit to Classico against the detriment to the neighborhood, which it did. The board recognized Classico would greatly benefit from the variance in a way that couldfi't be achieved by any other means. But the board found the need to alleviate traffic congestion and the fact that the variance would adversely impact the surrounding area outweighed this benefit. see also: Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zonhzg Board of Appeals, 353 N.E. 2d 594. Variance-- Did use variance rezone property from residential to commercial? Citation: Stop & Shop Supermarket Company v. Board of Adjustment of the Township of Springfield, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Div., No. A-] 02-97T5 (1998) Sak's Fifth Avenue ran a department store in Springfield, N.J. The store was on a "split lot," with the front zoned commercial and the rear residential. In 1956, Sak's applied to the board of adjustment for a variance allowing it to use the rear of its property for parking. The board granted the variance, finding the rear wasn't suitable for resi- dential development. The board said allowing Sak's to use the rear of its lot for parking would reduce traffic flow into the abutting residential areas and would alleviate traffic congestion. In 1968, Sak's applied for a variance allowing it to extend the rear of its building into the residential zone. The board granted this variance as well, finding that extending the building into the residential zone wouldn't impair the value of nearby homes. Years later, Sak's abandoned the store. Stop & Shop bought the property in 1996, seeking to operate a super- market. The zoning officer told Stop & Shop it needed a variance because its proposed use differed substantially from the former use, a department store. Stop & Shop appealed to the board of adjustment, claiming the variances Sak's received allowed it to develop the property for any purpose allowed in a commercial district. The board determined the variances didn't allow Stop & Shop to operate a supermarket or parking lot in the residential zone, stressing it based the earlier variances specifically on the quality, design, and use intensity Sak's proposed. The board said operating a supermarket on the residential portion of the lot would create much different traffic patterns, truck deliveries, and hours of op- eration. The board found Stop & Shop couldn't rely on the variances because its proposed use wasn't of a "similar nature, kind or use intensity." Stop & Shop appealed to court. It claimed the earlier variances essentially converted the rear of the lot from residential to commercial land, which meant