HIDDEN OAK WOODS, LLC VS. P&F GIANCOLA (C-000140-17, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2604-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 26, 2021Background
- Hidden Oak Woods, LLC owns ~41 acres rezoned for a 275-unit inclusionary residential development; it sued to enforce historic and current Township zoning and junkyard rules against a nearby auto-wrecking/salvage business.
- P&F Giancola (Giancola) has operated an automobile wrecking, salvage and storage business on the property since 1955; its predecessor obtained a 1955 use variance for wrecking/salvage/storage.
- Plaintiff alleged Giancola expanded and intensified uses (used-car sales, towing, parking into the front yard/right-of-way, inadequate/wrong-height screening, unpermitted signage, structural additions) that violate the 1952 ordinance, a 1963 junkyard licensing ordinance, and the current zoning ordinance.
- The Township joined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and agreed many violations occurred; Giancola admitted the 1955 variance and that the property was subject to the 1952 ordinance but defended on nonconforming-use and historical-practice grounds.
- Judge LeBlon granted plaintiff summary judgment, finding multiple zoning and junkyard violations, nuisance/economic impact on the inclusionary development, and ordered Giancola to abate violations within 30 days.
- Giancola appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed for the reasons stated in the trial court opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Giancola's operations violated zoning and junkyard ordinances (front-yard parking, setback, enclosure/fence height, signage) | Ordinances and 1963 junkyard rules prohibit front-yard parking without a variance, require enclosed screening and permit control signage; Giancola violated these and never obtained variances or junkyard license | Use long-standing since 1955; many practices predate later ordinances; signage and certain activities were permitted historically | Court found multiple violations of the 1952 ordinance, the 1963 junkyard ordinance, and the current zoning code; no variances/licenses were obtained; summary judgment for plaintiff affirmed |
| Whether Giancola's historic 1955 use variance or a nonconforming-use doctrine authorized its expanded/intensified uses (used-car sales, towing, additions) | Only wrecking/salvage/storage were authorized by the 1955 variance; expansions require new variance | Expanded activities are preexisting/nonconforming or otherwise permitted (argues Cascade theory) | A use variance does not permit after‑the‑fact expansion into new uses; additions/intensifications require a new variance; Cascade argument not preserved/unsupported; court upheld violation findings |
| Whether plaintiff pursued the correct remedy and procedural issues raised on appeal (quasi-criminal nature, alleged misrepresentations about exhibits) | Civil declaratory/abatement relief is proper; plaintiff relied on defendant's admissions and documentary record | Challenges that plaintiff pursued quasi-criminal relief and mischaracterized Exhibit D (1955 variance record incomplete) | Appellate court declined newly raised procedural arguments not presented below; record and defendant admissions supported use-variance evidence; no misrepresentation found |
| Whether defendant's activities constitute a nuisance and whether plaintiff had standing/interest to seek abatement based on marketability harm | Defendant's violations are eyesores/nuisances that materially interfere with plaintiff's right to use/enjoy its property and will harm marketability of its inclusionary development | Disputes the factual showing and specificity of alleged harms | Court found nuisance/economic-impact established; plaintiff was an interested party under statute and entitled to relief; nuisance finding supported affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (1973) (appellate courts generally decline issues not raised below)
- State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1 (2009) (limits on appellate review tied to record presentation)
- Township of Stafford v. Stafford Twp., 154 N.J. 62 (1998) (principles governing continuation and limitation of nonconforming uses)
- Palatine I v. Planning Bd., 133 N.J. 546 (1993) (nonconforming uses may coexist with later ordinances but are limited)
- Price v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263 (2013) (standards for granting use variances)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard and view of the record)
- Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67 (1954) (trial court must consider all papers to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist)