Laserfiche WebLink
December 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 24 Zoning Bulletin <br />ist were totally absent from the public notice in this case. While the pub- <br />lished notice alerted the public that some type of zoning amendment was <br />being considered regarding the GM site, the court found that "nothing <br />therein informed interested persons of the nature or extent of the change <br />or whether it was consequential enough to warrant their attendance at, <br />and participation in, the ensuing public hearing." <br />The court found that the notice of amendatory zoning ordinance, Or- <br />dinance 53 -10, fared no better. It did not alert the public that the amend- <br />ment involved the former GM site, much less the nature of the zoning <br />changes it was proposing. <br />The court noted that the notices did not need to be exhaustive or de- <br />tailed; they only need to reasonably inform of the substance of the pro- <br />posed changes. At a minimum, the published notices should have identified <br />and summarized the new zones and new uses, concluded the court. <br />Because the notices were insufficient, the court concluded that the ordi- <br />nances were invalid. <br />See also: Pond Run Watershed Ass'n v. Township of Hamilton Zoning Bd. <br />of Adjustment, 397 N.J. Super. 335, 937 A.2d 334 (App. Div. 2008). <br />See also: Perlman of Lacey, Inc. v. Lacey Tp. Planning Bd., 295 N.J. Su- <br />per. 234, 684 A.2d 1 005 (App. Div. 1996). <br />See also: Cotler v. Township of Pilesgrove, 393 N.J. Super. 377, 923 A.2d <br />338 (App. Div. 2007). <br />See also: Wolf v. Mayor and Borough Council of Borough of Shrewsbury, <br />182 N.J. Super.' 289, 440 A.2d 1150 (App. Div. 1981). <br />Case Note: The City, City Council, and Linden had argued that RSA <br />waived its right to challenge the ordinances because it had attended <br />the public hearing on Ordinance 52 -71 and did not then object to the <br />lack of proper notice. The court rejected that argument. The court <br />said that the entire public was entitled to notice in full compliance <br />with N.J.S.A. 40:49 -2.1. Further, said the court, the public's entitle- <br />ment to such notice could not be waived by those individual members <br />of the public who actually attend the improperly noticed public hear- <br />ing. Failure to provide proper notice deprived the City of jurisdiction <br />and rendered null any subsequent action. <br />8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />