Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/01/1996

Home

Page 6 September 1996 Z.B. Variance -- Does beneficial use of schOol for disabled outweigh increase in traffic? Children's Institute v. Verona To'wnship Board of Adjustment; 675 A.2d 1151 (New Jersey) 2996 The Children's Institute operated a school for disabled children on prop- erty it leased from the Livingston (N.J.) Board of Education.. Its students came from about 40 communities throughout the county and northern New Jersey. An average of 130 students attended school there daily. -A major pharmaceutical company donated to the school a 7-acre site in Verona Township. The property consisted of a 44,000-square-foot office build- ing and five accessory parking lots. (Two of the parking lots were actually in a town that neighbored Verona.) The building, which had been empty for four years, was in a single-family residential district but was designated as a preex- isting, nonconforming use. (Schools were not a permitted use in that zone.) The school applied to the township Board of Adjustment for a variance so it could relocate to, and operate at, the Verona site. The board could grant a variance if the proposed use would be inherently beneficial and have a minimal adverse impact on the neighborhood. If the office building were in operation, it could accommodate as many as 900 employees and would probably be occupied during normal business hours throughout the year. The school was open about 180 days during the year with a 20-day summer program. It.proposed to channel' the traffic so none of it would pass by any of the homes in certain areas. The board found that atthough the proposed use was inherently beneficial, its impact on traffic would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and the public good. The school appealed to court. The court found the' board's decision was arbitrary because the board compared the expected traffic flow to the complete lack of traffic the empty office building brought to the neighborhood. It granted the variance and returned the case for the board to propose reasonable condi- tions regarding traffic. The board appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the school. The lower court properly granted the variance and sent the case back to the board so it could impose reasonable conditions to address traffic problems. The negative impact, if any, expected from the proposed use would not be a substantial detriment to the public good. The board's decision was not based on the evidence. The office building was a legal nonconforming use. Although it had been vacant for some years, neighborhood residents had no right to expect the vacancy to be a permanent feature. Compared to what the traffic could be, the traffic the school would bring was minimal. In addition, the school was willing to channel the traffic flow so certain residences would not be disturbed. Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Townshi~ of Wall, 603 A.2d 30 (J992). Borough of Saddle River v. Bobinski, 259 A.2d 727 (1969).