Price v. Himeji, LLC
214 N.J. 263
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Himeji, LLC applied to the Union City Zoning Board to demolish three existing multiunit buildings and construct a larger multi-family building on an assembled through-lot in the R zone, within a Steep Slope Overlay District. The proposed building exceeded height, density, coverage, setback and parking rules, so Himeji sought a use variance, density and height (d) variances, multiple bulk (c)(2) variances, and an RSIS parking waiver.
- The Zoning Board held hearings, received expert testimony (planner, engineer, architect, traffic consultant), redesigns lowering height and unit count, and adopted a detailed resolution finding the parcel "particularly suited" for the proposed use and granting all variances and the waiver.
- A neighboring resident (Price) opposed but presented no expert evidence. Plaintiff Price appealed to the Law Division via an action in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the Board’s grants on multiple grounds.
- The Law Division reversed the Board, holding that the ‘‘particularly suitable’’ special-reasons test requires proof that the site is the only viable location for the project (no other viable location), and that Himeji failed that test; the court did not reach the other variance/waiver challenges.
- The Appellate Division reversed, finding the trial court’s reading too narrow, deferring to the Board’s detailed findings, and (exercising original jurisdiction) summarily rejecting plaintiff’s other challenges. The Supreme Court granted certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "particularly suitable" special reason for a (d)(1) use variance | Price: requires proof that the site is the only viable location (no other possible sites) | Himeji/Board: standard is flexible, site‑specific; alternative sites not required to be excluded | The Court rejects the ‘‘only site’’ reading; particular suitability is a site‑specific, flexible inquiry—no need to show uniqueness, but the record must support why the site is especially well‑suited |
| Whether Board met enhanced quality of proof / negative criteria for the use variance | Price: Board failed to meet enhanced proof and negative criteria | Himeji/Board: Board made clear findings connecting benefits to MLUL purposes and negative‑criteria considerations | Court finds Board’s resolution and record satisfy enhanced proof and negative criteria; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether associated height and density (d) variances require separate special‑reasons showings | Price: each (d) variance needs its own special‑reasons proof | Himeji/Board: height and density can be assessed in conjunction with a (d)(1) use variance; site must show it can accommodate associated problems | Court holds height/density may be considered ancillary to the (d)(1) analysis and judged by a relaxed, site‑specific test; Board properly required design reductions |
| Whether Appellate Division properly exercised original jurisdiction to decide remaining challenges | Price: panel deprived him of due process and should have remanded issues to Law Division; opinion lacked detailed findings | Himeji/Board: original jurisdiction appropriate because record was complete, issues involved law and no disputed facts, plaintiff had notice | Court affirms Appellate Division’s exercise of original jurisdiction and reviews record de novo; finds no reversible error in handling or in substance |
Key Cases Cited
- Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (1987) (articulates "particularly suitable" special‑reasons concept and enhanced proof requirement for (d)(1) variances)
- Kohl v. Mayor of Fair Lawn, 50 N.J. 268 (1967) (explains special reasons must relate to MLUL purposes; site‑specific inquiry)
- Fobe Assocs. v. Mayor of Demarest, 74 N.J. 519 (1977) (discusses limits of particular suitability where record lacks factual support)
- Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment, 45 N.J. 268 (1965) (deference to local boards; review standard; site‑specific analysis)
- Burbridge v. Twp. of Mine Hill, 117 N.J. 376 (1990) (rejects reliance on general public benefit alone; examines need/uniqueness in expansions of nonconforming uses)