Laserfiche WebLink
<br />March 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No.6 <br /> <br />its decision was supported by the evidence and was not arbitrary, <br />capricious, or illegal. The court 'found no abuse of discretion, so <br />the decision of the board was reinstated. <br /> <br />See also: Conlin v. Scio Tp., 262 Mich. App. 379, 686 N. W,2d 16 <br />(2004). <br /> <br />Handicapped Discrimination-Township denies variance <br />to construct multi-use housing project <br /> <br />Housing alliance claims 'pattern of discrimination' exists <br /> <br />Citation: Monmouth Housing Alliance v. Zoning Ed. of <br />Adjustment of Tp. of Marlboro, 2007 WL 461338 (N.J. Super. <br />Ct. App. Div. 2007) <br /> <br />J:\TEW JERSEY (02/14/07)--..LAt~er the state announced that it <br />would close a hospital located in the township of Marlboro, the <br />land upon which the hospital was located-approximately 1,000 <br />acres-was rezoned for low-density development. The Mon- <br />mouth Housing Alliance (MHA) applied to the township's zon- <br />ing board of adjustment for a variance to build a 37-unit apart- <br />ment building on a part of the rezoned land. <br />The application was denied. MHA appealed the denial to <br />court, arguing that the township had either "intentionally dis- <br />criminated against or failed to make reasonable accommoda- <br />tions" to allow its project, which was intended to provide afford- <br />able housing and some living facilities for people with mental ill- <br />ness handicaps. <br />The trial court foull,d that the township had not violated any <br />laws under the Fair Housing Act nor any state anti-discrimination <br />laws. The court found that the township had a legal, nondiscrim- <br />inatory reason for denying the application, noting that M1-L!\'s <br />plan would require development that was "drastically greater <br />than allowed by ordinance and completely at variance with the <br />character of the area." <br />MHA appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The appeals court reviewed the record for an error of law, <br />but it found that the record supported the decision of the lower <br />court-which had delivered a detailed and lengthy decision in <br />support of its finding. The decision of the lower court was sup- <br /> <br />S <br /> <br />157 <br />