Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2005

Home

Page 4 -- August lO, 2005 g,g. The court found it was evident that the city deprived Warren of a property interest by erecting barricades across one of the two means of access to his Dairy Queen. The court also concluded that Warren received notice but no hearing. Gov- ernmental determinations of a general nature that affected all people equally did not give rise to a due process right to be heard. However, when a relatively small number of people were affected on individual grounds, the right to a hearing was triggered. The city's action clearly resulted in an individuahzed impact on a specific individual, and triggered the fight to a hearing. see also: Montgomery v. Carter County, 226 E3d 758 (2000). see also: Tri-Corp &fanagement Co. v. ?raanik, 33 Fed. Appx. 742 (2002). Variance -- Board allows large density building in recently rez°ned area Township claims board is ignoring master plan Citation: Township of North Brunswick v. Zoning Board of Adjt~stmenr of the Townxhip of North Brunswick, Superior Court of New Jersey, App. Div., No. A-6494-O3T3 (2005) NEW JERSEY (06/23/05) --The North Brunswick Zoning Board of Adjustment granted use and/bulk variances to Kaplan Companies to permit the construe4 tion of a.luxury/apartment building for senior citizens in an R-2 zone. When completed, the building would look like an upscale hotel. According to the township's master plan, only single-family detached homes were permitted in the I~-2 zone. Consequently, Kaplan sought use and bulk variances for building height, lot density, and parking. Without finding the use inherently beneficial, the zoning board granted the requested variances. In granting the variances, the board ignored the zoning history of the particular lot. In 1985, the property was zoned for transitional mi,ted uses such as multifamily dwelhngs of up to six units per acre. When the master plan was updated in 1999, Kaplan's lot was specifically designated for future density reduction to avoid the potential construction of numerous small apart- ment buildings on narrow, deep lots. The lot was rezoned R-2 in 2002. The township sued to invalidate the variances. The court ruled in its favor, finding the history of the lot supported the variance denial. The zoning board sued. DECISION: Affirmed. The board unjustly usurped the township's power. The ordinance's amendment' history- showed the township rezoned the prop- erty approximately one year before the board voted to ~ant Kap!an's requested use vahance. Additionally, this rezonmg had taken the property out of a transitional zone where multffamily dwellings of up to slx units per acre had been permitted. The © 2005 Quinian Pubiisr~ing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.