Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2017

Home

November 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, held that the state university development immunity from local regulation found under Rutgers also applied here —to a state university's construction of an on -site road that will intersect a local or county road. However, the court emphasized that such "immunity [from regulation] is not completely unbridled." The court explained that state universities have "an `implied duty' to consider local interests that obviously include legitimate `safety concerns.' " To satisfy such an obliga- tion, said the court, "a state university `ought to consult with local authorities and sympathetically listen and give every consideration to local objections, problems and suggestions in order to minimize conflict as much as possible.' " Addressing the City and County's argument directly, the court said that in or- der for a state university to satisfy its obligation to reasonably consider "local safety concerns," the state university is "not obligated to appear before local land use boards," but must listen to and consider local objections. Whether a state university has complied with its obligation to consult and consider local concerns is a `judicial function not conditioned upon consider- ation by a local zoning board," said the court. Here, the court remanded the matter to the trial judge for reinstatement of MSU's complaint, and for the judge to determine whether MSU satisfied those obligations under Rutgers. See also: Rutgers, State University v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 286 A.2d 697 (1972). See also: Township of Fairfield v. State, Dept. of Transp., 440 N.J. Super. 310, 113 A.3d 267 (App. Div. 2015), certification denied, 222 N.J. 310, 118 A.3d 350 (2015) (quoting Garden State Farms, Inc. v. Bay, 77 N.J. 439, 390 A.2d 1177 (1978)). RLUIPA—City denies height variance for personal chapel Variance applicant claims denial substantially burdens his exercise of religion in violation of RLUIPA Citation: Milosavlejevic v. City of Brier, 2017 WL 3917015 (W.D. Wash. 2017) WASHINGTON (09/07/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a city's denial of a zoning variance for the construction of a personal chapel violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLU- IPA") (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000ee). The Background/Facts: Vladan Milosavlejevic ("Milosavlejevic") sought to build a personal Serbian Orthodox chapel on property owned by his company in a single-family residential zone in the City of Brier (the "City"). Milosavlejevic sought to build a chapel with two domes, each nearly 40.5 feet high. He claimed that the height of the domes was necessary to comply with religious standards, including a "Serbian Orthodox belief that 40 is a holy number." Because the City Municipal Code (the "Code") limited buildings in 4 © 2017 Thomson Reuters