Nfi Real Estate, LLC v. Florence Township Zoning Board of Adjustment
A-1054-23/A-2189-23
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Apr 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs NFI Real Estate, LLC and Turnpike Crossings VI, LLC sought approval to construct large warehouses on two tracts (Wainwright and Lounsberry), which straddle Florence and Mansfield Townships, NJ.
- Mansfield Township granted plaintiffs' development approvals for the warehouse, which exceeds local zoning height limits; Florence Township denied necessary use and height variances for the parts of the project within its borders.
- The Florence SM zone allowed warehouses but with a maximum height of 30 feet; plaintiffs' proposed buildings would be 48 feet, matching what was allowed/approved on the Mansfield side.
- Florence's Township Zoning Board denied both use and height variance applications, citing concerns over increased intensity, particularly traffic, and inconsistency with the master plan.
- The trial court upheld the Zoning Board's decisions, finding the Board's rejection of plaintiffs' expert testimony (about height and traffic impacts) was reasonable and well-supported.
- Plaintiffs appealed both denials; the Appellate Division consolidated the appeals and affirmed the lower court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board erred denying use/height variance for excess warehouse height in SM zone | Board did not credit Mansfield’s approval/zoning; height limits obsolete; expert evidence uncontroverted | Intensity from excess height causes detrimental impacts; Board free to reject expert testimony | Board’s denial was not arbitrary or unreasonable |
| Whether Board improperly applied a heightened legal standard (Medici) | Board used a more stringent variance standard requiring enhanced proof | Correct, less stringent standard (Coventry Square/Grasso) was applied | Lower standard was applied; plaintiffs still failed to satisfy |
| Whether Board failed to properly weigh or accept plaintiffs’ expert testimony | Testimony was "unrebutted"; rejection was arbitrary | Board can reasonably reject such testimony if unconvincing or unsupported | Board’s choice of evidence accepted unless arbitrary |
| Whether prior variances for similar projects required same outcome here | Similar variance (2019) proves precedent and arbitrariness here | Prior variance was factually distinct (site, impacts); each case judged on facts | Prior grant does not bind Board; facts differ |
Key Cases Cited
- Coventry Square, Inc. v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment, 138 N.J. 285 (N.J. 1994) (less stringent standard for variances with permitted uses)
- Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1987) (heightened standard for use variances)
- Jock v. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 184 N.J. 562 (N.J. 2005) (local zoning boards given deference)
- Kramer v. Bd. of Adj., Sea Girt, 45 N.J. 268 (N.J. 1965) (courts defer to local land use decisions unless arbitrary)
- Ferraro v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of Holmdel, 119 N.J. 61 (N.J. 1990) (considering entire split-zone tract and neighboring municipal zoning)
- Sica v. Bd. of Adj., 127 N.J. 152 (N.J. 1992) (variance requires weighing positive and negative criteria)