Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin July 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 14 <br />J) <br />Here, Edelhertz had argue that enactment of the Zoning Amendment <br />was adjudicative because it was "based on a host of targeted facts" and <br />was "retrospective in nature looking back over several years of examined <br />activity" —namely the examination of criminal activity related to <br />multiple dwellings in the City. The court disagreed. It concluded that the <br />City's decision to enact the Zoning Amendment was "legislative" in <br />character because it was prospective and generally applicable. More <br />specifically, the court found the enactment of the Zoning Amendment: <br />"did not attempt to adjudicate particular facts as to any one [landowner] <br />or group of [landowners]"; nor was it enacted to single out any individ- <br />ual "for special consideration based on [her] own peculiar <br />circumstances." Rather, found the court, the City, acted in a policy - <br />making capacity, considering facts relating generally to nonowner oc- <br />cupied multiple dwellings in the relevant zoning districts, and finding <br />that nonowner occupied multiple dwellings "generally impaired the <br />orderly development and general welfare of certain zoning districts." <br />Since the Due Process Clause did not apply to legislative action, the <br />court deteiniined that Edelhertz's claim of deprivation of due process <br />failed. <br />See also: RR Village Ass 'n, Inc. v. Denver Sewer Corp., 826 F.2d <br />1197, 8 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1056 (2d Cir. 1987). <br />See also: Interport Pilots Agency, Inc. v. Sammis, 14 F.3d 133, 1994 <br />A.M.C. 2704 (2d Cir. 1994). <br />Conformity to Regulations <br />Adjacent landowner challenges <br />approval of conditional use <br />application <br />Landowner alleges error in property <br />identification for hearing notice and improper <br />calculations related to conditions <br />Citation: Northgate Condominium Ass 'n, Inc. v. Borough of Hillsdale <br />Planning Bd., 2013 WL 1943204 (N.J. 2013) <br />NEW JERSEY (05/13/13)—This case addressed the issues of: (1) <br />whether a conditional use approval notice that contained an erroneous <br />tax lot designation complied with New Jersey's Municipal Land Use <br />Law ("MLUL"); and (2) whether a planning board is permitted to round <br />down dwelling units per acre calculations when deteiuiining compliance <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />