Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

August 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin Civil Rights/Procedures—Property owner appeals issuance of zoning permits to neighbor, and later brings a civil rights claim against borough Property owner's civil rights claim contends borough violated her substantive right to be heard in her appeal Citation: Harz v. Borough of Spring Lake, 2018 WL 3117016 (N.J. 2018) NEW JERSEY (06/26/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a home- owner, who challenges the issuance of a zoning permit allowing construction on neighboring property, has a statutory right to be heard before the municipal plan- ning board, and if so, whether the violation of that right gives rise to an action under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2. The Background/Facts: In December 2009, the Borough of Spring Lake (the "Borough") issued a zoning permit (the "First Permit") to Thomas Carter ("Carter"). The permit was for construction of a two -and -a -half story residence and a detached garage. Mary Harz ("Harz") owned the property adjacent to Carter's. She was unaware of the issuance of the permit until late spring 2010 when construction began on Carter's residence. Concerned about what she was observing of the construction, Harz reviewed Carter's development plans on file at the Borough's Zoning Office and determined that they allowed for several violations of the Borough's land -use ordinance. Harz brought her concerns to the Borough's zoning officer. Unsatisfied with the zoning officer's response, Harz hired an attorney. In June 2010, Harz's attorney appealed the issuance of Carter's zoning permit. Despite Harz's request to do so, the zoning officer failed to transmit the appeal to the Borough's Planning Board. The zoning officer did request revised construc- tion plans from Carter, and although no stop work order issued, construction on the project effectively ceased. In August 2010, the zoning officer approved a new set of revised plans and is- sued an amended zoning permit to Carter (the "Second Permit"). Harz appealed the Second Permit, alleging that the revised plans still violated the Borough's height regulations. The Planning Board set a hearing for the appeal, but later cancelled it, and instead the zoning officer issued a stop work order on the deter- mination that Carter's construction plans were not in conformance with the Borough's land -use ordinance. After Carter again submitted revised construction plans, another permit (the "Third Permit") issued. Harz again believed the revised plans still violated the Borough's land -use ordinance. She sought and obtained from the superior court a temporary restraining order to stop construction, and then she appealed the is- suance of the Third Permit to the Planning Board. After a hearing, the Planning Board agreed with some of Harz's objections, finding Carter's construction plans violated some of the Borough's land -use ordinance. The Planning board rescinded the Third Permit, and then, once Carter met specified conditions, issued a final permit to Carter. 6 © 2018 Thomson Reuters