Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2012 Volume 6 No. 4 <br />businesses had no more voice in the government of other municipalities <br />within New Jersey borders. <br />The court concluded that, as a part of the evaluation of the regional mar- <br />ket, it is permissible to consider not only the "neighboring communities" <br />that lie within New Jersey's borders, but to consider as relevant to the ques- <br />tion those "neighboring communities" that are beyond those borders. <br />See also: Township of Saddle Brook v. A.B. Family Center, Inc., 156 N.J. <br />587, 722 A.2d 530 (1999). <br />Case Note: The court emphasized that its holding was a narrow <br />one. We do not suggest that a record that demonstrates that the <br />only available alternate sites are beyond our borders would be con- <br />stitutionally defensible. Nor do we suggest that a record in which <br />the majority of such sites are in another state would pass constitu- <br />tional muster. But travel between states on our roads and through <br />our public transportation system, factors that both experts in this <br />case found relevant to their market analysis, is a fact of modern life <br />in our increasingly mobile society." <br />Case Note: The court noted that in determining whether the stat- <br />ute was unconstitutional as-applied to 35 Club required "difficult, <br />fact-sensitive, inquiries" with the following steps: (1) determination <br />of the relevant market area; (2) determination of the availability <br />of suitable sites within that market area; and (3) determination of <br />whether the number of suitable sites in relation to the size of the <br />market area provides Club 35 with enough alternatives to withstand <br />constitutional scrutiny. <br />Standing—Circuit Court Overturns BZA Denial <br />of Variance <br />Abutting landowner, who was not a party in circuit court <br />case, appeals circuit court's decision <br />Citation: Underwood v. St. Joseph Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 2012 WL <br />117747 (Mo. Ct. App. WD. 2012) <br />MISSOURI (01/17/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether an <br />adjacent property owner has standing to appeal a circuit court decision <br />in which he/she was not a party. <br />© 2012 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />