RAQUEL CALVO VS. WEST NEW YORK PLANNING BOARD(L-003317-15, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3833-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 19, 2017Background
- Grana applied to West New York Planning Board to convert a two-family home at 610 61st Street into a daycare (ground + first floors) and one residential unit (second floor); daycare is a conditional use in the R-M district.
- Grana proposed to use an adjacent church parking lot under a five-year lease as a drop-off/pick-up staging area; access via a gate in the separating wall.
- The Board held a public hearing, approved the application unanimously, and issued a resolution finding the daycare an inherently beneficial conditional use and not detrimental to the neighborhood; approval conditioned on continued access to the church property.
- Plaintiff Calvo (operator of a nearby daycare) sued, raising seven claims: arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction (use variance required), failure to submit lease 10 days before hearing, insufficient proof for variance relief, inadequate public notice (failure to notify owners within 200 feet of the church property), and procedural defects in plan submission.
- Trial court remanded solely on notice grounds — concluding the church property was an integral part of the application and owners within 200 feet of the church should have been noticed under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-12(b) — but rejected plaintiff’s other challenges.
- Appellate division affirmed the trial court’s decision for the reasons set forth in the trial judge’s written opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board lacked jurisdiction and a use variance was required | Grana sought a use beyond zoning; Board had no jurisdiction to grant conditional use without variance | Daycare is a permitted conditional use under ordinance; Board has authority to grant conditional uses | Board had jurisdiction; conditional-use review was appropriate under local ordinance |
| Whether church parking lot was part of the application requiring expanded notice | Church property was integral; owners within 200 feet should have been noticed | Notice to properties within 200 feet of Grana’s parcel was sufficient | Court held church property was integral; remanded for new hearing with expanded notice |
| Whether Grana failed to submit the lease 10 days before hearing (procedural defect) | Failure to provide lease before hearing invalidates approval | Board considered lease-related evidence; procedural timing did not void decision | Trial court rejected this challenge; appellate court affirmed |
| Whether proofs supported any required variance relief | Grana failed to meet standards for variance or conditional-use variance | Record contained adequate proof and Board applied conditional-use standards | Court found Board decision supported by evidence; no reversal except on notice issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (1987) (establishes standards for (d)(1) use variances)
- Coventry Square Inc. v. Westwood Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 138 N.J. 285 (1994) (analysis for conditional-use variance where applicant cannot meet ordinance conditions)
- TSI E. Brunswick, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of E. Brunswick, 215 N.J. 26 (2013) (distinguishes use variance, conditional use, and conditional-use variance)
- New Brunswick Cellular Tel. Co. v. Borough of S. Plainfield Bd. of Adjustment, 160 N.J. 1 (1999) (standard that board decisions are presumptively valid; reversible only if arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable)
- Jock v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Wall, 184 N.J. 562 (2005) (defers to local bodies on facts and local conditions)
- Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 132 N.J. 509 (1993) (appellate courts review legal questions de novo)