PL SQUARED, LLC VS. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THETOWNSHIP OF HOPEWELL(L-2800-15, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5104-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 5, 2017Background
- PL Squared, LLC owns a single-family lot in Hopewell Township's Mountain Resource Conservation (MRC) District and sought to develop a convenience store and gas station.
- Plaintiff applied to the Township Zoning Board of Adjustment for a use variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(1) and several bulk variances under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(1).
- The Board held multiple hearings, received testimony and exhibits, and denied the applications, finding the site unsuited and that approval would conflict with the Township Master Plan and an ordinance limiting multiple uses in the MRC district.
- Plaintiff filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs; the Law Division upheld the Board and the Appellate Division reviewed the appeal.
- The court reviewed whether the Board’s denial was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, applying the substantial-evidence/deferential standard for zoning board decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board erred denying use variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(1) | Denial was arbitrary; parcel suffers economic inutility/undue hardship and site is particularly suitable (special reasons) | Granting use variance would conflict with Master Plan and ordinance; site not in commercial corridor and rezoned to residential | Affirmed — plaintiff failed to prove positive and negative criteria; denial supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether economic inutility established special reasons/undue hardship | Parcel declining for residential use; cannot be reasonably adapted to conforming use | Surrounding uses are residential/open space; no credible evidence of economic inutility amounting to special reasons | Denied — record did not support economic inutility as special reasons |
| Whether granting variances would be detrimental to public good/zone plan (negative criteria) | Plaintiff argued denial ignores economic loss and lack of viable alternatives | Board and township showed incompatibility with Master Plan and zoning ordinance; would impair zone plan | Denied — Board made clear findings that variances would substantially detract from Master Plan and ordinance intent |
| Whether bulk variances under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(1) should be granted | Bulk relief needed due to property conditions/topography | Plaintiff did not satisfy negative criteria; granting would conflict with ordinance and plan | Denied — record supports Board’s conclusion plaintiff failed to meet statutory criteria |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263 (2013) (standard for reviewing zoning board variance decisions; burden on challenger)
- Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (1987) (special reasons and undue hardship/economic inutility principles for use variances)
- Cell S. of N.J., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 172 N.J. 75 (2002) (deference to zoning boards and substantial-evidence requirement)
- Nuckel v. Borough of Little Ferry Planning Bd., 208 N.J. 95 (2011) (categories of special reasons for use variances)
- Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment, 45 N.J. 268 (1965) (zoning boards’ latitude due to local knowledge)