Jai Sai Ram, LLC and Sunil Dhir v. the planning/zoning, 141 A.3d 407

Background

Wawa filed a use-variance/site-plan application to build a combined convenience store and gasoline station on property partly in a highway-commercial zone and partly in a residential zone; the use was not permitted at filing and the ordinance also prohibited two principal uses on one lot.
The property lies in the Pinelands Regional Growth Area; while Wawa's application was pending, the Pinelands Commission certified a municipal zoning amendment creating a Special Economic Development (SED) zone.
The Board approved Wawa's application in January 2014, concluding the combined use was a single principal use; the Pinelands Commission issued a consistency ("no call up") letter approving the Board's decision.
Plaintiffs (Jai Sai Ram, LLC and Dhir) sought review in the Law Division; the trial court affirmed the Board. Plaintiffs appealed.
While the appeal was pending, the municipality amended its ordinance in 2015 to expressly permit "single use retail sales & gasoline filling stations operated by a single business entity" in the SED zone; the Pinelands Executive Director approved that amendment.
The Appellate Division held the 2015 amendment entitled the applicant to its benefit, rendering the plaintiffs’ challenge to the use variance moot and affirming below on other issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10.5 (time-of-application rule) bars application of a later, more favorable zoning amendment to a pending use-variance application	The statute locks review to regulations in effect on application date, so a later ordinance should not apply	The statute should not prevent application of a later ordinance that specifically permits the proposed use	The statute does not apply where a post-filing amendment specifically permits the use at issue; applicant gets benefit of the amended ordinance
Whether the appeal of the granted use variance is moot after the 2015 ordinance amendment	Plaintiffs: appeal remains justiciable because Board applied earlier ordinance and issues of process/authority remain	Defendants: amendment permits the use, so variance is unnecessary and the challenge is moot	Appeal is moot as to the use variance because the applicant may proceed without a variance under the amended ordinance
Standing of lessee (Wawa) to pursue the application despite being lessee rather than owner	Plaintiffs: Wawa lacked standing to pursue the application despite landowner consent	Defendants: lessee pursued with landowner consent; standing adequate	Court rejected plaintiffs' standing challenge for reasons given by trial court
Alleged improper participation by mayor and two council members serving on the Board and other local zoning/contention that project is an automobile service station requiring 1500-foot setback	Plaintiffs: statutory disqualification and misclassification trigger procedural defects and setback requirement	Defendants: record does not support disqualification; project is not an "automobile service station" as defined	Court rejected these procedural and classification claims based on the record and trial judge's analysis

Key Cases Cited

Maragliano v. Land Use Bd. of Wantage, 403 N.J. Super. 80 (App. Div. 2008) (discusses the prior time-of-decision rule and municipal ability to change ordinances after filing)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (municipality may change ordinances after permits issued absent substantial reliance)
In re Application for a Retail Firearms Dealer's License Renewal, 445 N.J. Super. 80 (App. Div. 2016) (mootness principles where subsequent action renders relief unnecessary)
Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2006) (mootness framework for administrative appeals)
Hubbard v. Reed, 168 N.J. 387 (2001) (statutory interpretation: reject literal readings that produce absurd results)
Perelli v. Pastorelle, 206 N.J. 193 (2011) (courts may depart from literal text to effect legislative purpose)