Carol Jacoby v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of The
124 A.3d 694
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- LG sought site-plan approval to build a 143.8-foot, eight‑story North American headquarters on a 27‑acre Englewood Cliffs parcel atop the Palisades Cliffs; Borough zoning limited building height to 35 feet.
- LG also sought a bulk variance to reduce required on‑site parking by replacing surface lots with parking decks (proposal: 1,421 spaces vs. ordinance minimum 2,466).
- The Borough Zoning Board granted site plan approval, a (d)(6) height variance, and bulk variances; Board emphasized increased landscaping, buffers, LEED Gold design, and elimination of surface parking.
- Objectors (residents, environmental groups, New York elected officials and State of New York as amici) argued the height would be visible from the Palisades, the Park, and vantage points in New York and would harm the scenic corridor.
- Plaintiffs challenged the grants in lieu of prerogative writs; the Law Division affirmed the Board; this appeal followed and the Appellate Division consolidated related appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LG satisfied the (d)(6) positive requirement ("special reasons") for a substantial height variance | Jacoby/Davis/intervenors: LG did not show special reasons tailored to the purpose of the 35‑ft limit or that the tall building would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly considering regional scenic resources | Board/LG: Enhanced landscaping, buffers, LEED Gold design, large lot and setbacks constitute "special reasons" supporting height variance | Reversed for height: Board misapplied (d)(6); its findings did not tailor special reasons to the purpose of the height limit or adequately evaluate consistency with the surrounding neighborhood |
| Whether LG satisfied the (d)(6) negative requirement (no substantial detriment; not impair zone plan) | Plaintiffs: Board failed to assess impacts on the Palisades/region and did not analyze intent behind height limit; aesthetic benefits alone insufficient | Board/LG: Landscaping, buffer, reduced impervious surface, and no shadowing mean no substantial detriment | Reversed for height: Board failed to analyze negative criteria under Grasso/N.J.S.A. 40:55D‑70(d)(6); record lacked findings addressing regional scenic impacts |
| Scope of "surrounding neighborhood" for height variance analysis | Plaintiffs: Must include reasonable visual vantage points beyond municipality given visibility of Palisades; Board should consider regional impacts | Board/LG: Analysis can focus on municipality / immediate vicinity and site‑specific mitigation | Held: "Surrounding neighborhood" includes reasonable visual vantage points beyond municipal boundaries when a structure will be visible regionally; Board must consider regional scenic resources in its (d)(6) analysis |
| Validity of bulk variance for reduced parking (c)(1) v. (c)(2) analysis | Intervenors: Hardship was self‑created; LG cannot meet (c)(1) so variance improper | LG/Board: Reduction advances MLUL purposes (better environment, aesthetics); garage eliminates surface lot runoff and increases buffers | Affirmed in part: (c)(1) hardship not shown (self‑created), but (c)(2) granted — benefits (reduced impervious area, buffers, improved visual environment) outweigh detriments and advance MLUL purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Grasso v. Borough of Spring Lake Heights, 375 N.J. Super. 41 (App. Div. 2004) (interpreting heightened (d)(6) standards for height variances)
- Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (1987) (negative criteria require meaningful, fact‑based findings to show no substantial detriment)
- Coventry Square, Inc. v. Westwood Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 138 N.J. 285 (1994) (board must reconcile variance with municipal legislative determinations)
- Lang v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 160 N.J. 41 (1999) (distinction between (c)(1) hardship and (c)(2) balancing test)
- Kaufmann v. Planning Bd., 110 N.J. 551 (1988) (c(2) variance must represent a better zoning alternative that benefits the community)
- Jock v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 184 N.J. 562 (2005) (self‑created hardship bars c(1) relief)
- Urban Farms, Inc. v. Franklin Lakes, 179 N.J. Super. 203 (App. Div. 1981) (zoning must be regionally oriented; municipal officials must look beyond municipal lines)
- Quinton v. Edison Park Dev. Corp., 59 N.J. 571 (1971) (municipalities must consider effects of zoning beyond borders)
- Duffcon Concrete Prods., Inc. v. Cresskill, 1 N.J. 509 (1949) (land‑use decisions must account for regional conditions)
- Knight v. Bodkin, 344 N.Y.S.2d 170 (App. Div. 1973) (struck down zoning approval partly because proposed use would be incongruous with historic/scenic area)