Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Page 4 February 15, 1995 Z.B. 'i appealed, the court allowed neighboring property owners who opposed MobJl's plans to join the lawsuit. The court reversed the board's decision because it did not find the board's expert witness on traffic flow credible. The neighbors appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The appeals court reversed the decision, and ordered the lower court to dismiss Mobil's appeal. The lower court exceeded its authority by substituting its own judgment for the board's regarding the expert witness' credibility. Even if only one of the board's stated reasons was supported by evidence, the court had to affirm it. The board properly considered street capacities for peak' traffic and the ade- quacy of parking facilities, entrances, and exits. These considerations were set forth in the city's zoning regulations, and were a proper basis for decision. Horn v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 559 A.2d 1174 (1989). Nonconforming Use-- Auto Salvage Business Starts Mining and Recycling Operations Township of Fairfield v. Likanchuk's lncl, 644 A.2d 120 (New Jersey) 1994 Likanchuk's Inc. owned four neighboring lots in the township of Fairfield, N.J. Two lots were zoned business/industrial, and the other two were agricul- tural. Auto salvage yards, gravel mining, and recycling were not allowed in either zone. The company had operated an auto salvage yard on one of the tots before the township adopted its zoning ordinance. Therefore, the Yard was a Iawful nonconforming use. The company also had removed earth and gravel from the lot, but less than 500 cubic yards of it per. year. In 1987, the township's zoning officer gave the company a certificate of use and occupancy for all four lots, stating they could be used to accept clean fill and demolition debris for disposal. In 1988, the company's residential neigh- bors complained to township officials about a large amount of sand and gravel excavation on the property -- sometimes more than 100 truckloads a day. The township sued the company, asking the court to stop Likanchuk from sand and gravel mining until the Zoning Board of Adjustment could review the operation. The court did not stop the company from mining, but told it to ask the board whether the mining was a preexisting use. While the case was pending, the company got a permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for a concrete and asphalt recy- cling business. A few months later, the township inspected the company's prop- erty and saw asphalt and concrete stockpiles there. More than a year later, the township asked the court to stop the company's recycling business. Shortly after, the board of adjustment held the sand and gravel removal was permitted as a nonconforming use, but only on the lot with the attto salvage business. Also, only up to 500 cubic yards per year could be removed.