Kinderkamack Road Associates, LLC v. Mayor of Oradell
22 A.3d 129
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Plaintiff owns four contiguous lots in Oradell: Lot 9 (R-4) and Lots 10, 11, 13 (B-1).
- Plaintiff sought a use variance to redevelop the site for a Walgreens with Lot 9 as a landscaped buffer to satisfy setbacks.
- Oradell Zoning Board of Adjustment granted the variance in 2009, with findings that Lot 9 would serve as a buffer and reduce nonconformities.
- Governing Body conducted a de novo review and reversed the Board, denying the variance and concluding Lot 9 could not satisfy the criteria.
- Trial court affirmed the Governing Body, concluding negative criteria were not met; positive criteria were not shown to be particular to Lot 9.
- Court of appeals affirmed, applying deferential review and rejecting plaintiff’s claims of uncontroverted expert testimony and positive criteria evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lot 9 has particular suitability for the variance | Lot 9 is especially suitable as a landscaped buffer advancing master plan goals. | Suitability fails because Lot 9 would expand the business zone into the residential zone and is not the type of buffer contemplated. | No; no special reasons found; positive criteria not satisfied. |
| Whether the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good | Buffer use reduces conflicts and conforms with Master Plan, with overall open space benefits. | Variance would encroach into residential area and intensify development contrary to Master Plan. | No; negative criteria not met; substantial detriment shown. |
| Whether the Governing Body’s de novo review was proper and its findings supported by record | Governing Body improperly discounted uncontroverted expert testimony and misapplied evidence. | Governing Body may assess expert testimony and apply its own judgments to the record. | Yes; de novo review proper; findings supported by record. |
| Whether the plan to eliminate non-conformities and reconfigure lots undermined the zoning scheme | Proposal eliminates non-conforming conditions and creates better alignment with Master Plan. | Plan effectively expands the business zone at the expense of residential area and is not contemplated by zoning. | No; proposal not reconciled with zoning map and Master Plan. |
Key Cases Cited
- Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (1987) (enhanced proof required for noninherently beneficial uses)
- Saddle Brook Realty, LLC v. Township of Saddle Brook Zoning Bd. of Adj., 388 N.J. Super. 67 (App.Div. 2006) (special reasons may arise from site suitability or hardship)
- Funeral Home Mgmt., Inc. v. Basralian, 319 N.J. Super. 200 (App.Div. 1999) (buffer/transition rationale requires real special circumstances)
- Nuckel v. Borough of Little Ferry Planning Bd., 208 N.J. 95 (2011) (legislative preference for ordinance planning over variances)
- New Brunswick Cellular Tel. Co. v. Borough of S. Plainfield Bd. of Adj., 160 N.J. 1 (1999) (positive and negative criteria; master plan alignment)
- Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Bd. of Adj. of Springfield, 162 N.J. 418 (2000) (enhanced proof required for noninherently beneficial uses)
- Evesham Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adj. v. Evesham Twp. Council, 86 N.J. 295 (1981) (governing body discretion in evaluating variances)