STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JIHAD EWINGÂ (14-09-2760, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3611-15T1

Background

V Boys Ramsey Holding applied to develop a lot in Ramsey's B-3 (Highway Commercial) district for a WaWa gas station with a convenience store; initial application sought variances but was later revised to remove them.
Ramsey Ordinance permits service stations and retail uses in the B-1/B-3 districts and requires any public garage/service station to have a minimum ground floor area of 1,600 sq ft; ordinance distinguishes "structure" from "building" but does not define "building."
Zoning Officer Mammone reviewed V Boys' plans, concluded the proposal was a permitted service station with a retail component (not a restaurant), and determined no variances were required. Plaintiffs sought Zoning Board review.
At board hearings, plaintiffs’ expert (engineer/architect) testified the project failed the 1,600 sq ft requirement or that the canopy would count as a second building; V Boys' planner and the Zoning Officer disagreed.
The Zoning Board affirmed the Zoning Officer (5-1 with 3 abstentions). Plaintiffs filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs; the trial court affirmed the board and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed WaWa meets the ordinance's 1,600 sq ft minimum for a public garage/service station	The 5,051 sq ft building is a convenience store (not service-station floor area); canopy cannot be a building, so the service station lacks required 1,600 sq ft	The canopy and/or the convenience store area satisfy the 1,600 sq ft requirement; canopy is a structure (like a garage), not a separate principal building	Held: The canopy and the store area satisfy the 1,600 sq ft requirement; ordinance does not require the 1,600 sq ft be exclusively for vehicle service space
Admissibility/weight of Zoning Officer's testimony	Zoning Officer lacked competence/understanding of the ordinance, so his testimony should be disregarded	Zoning Officer, as municipal official, had familiarity with ordinance and plans; his opinion was supported by data and practice	Held: Zoning Officer's testimony was admissible and reasonable; board properly considered it
Whether B-3 district limits number of principal uses/structures on a lot	Ordinance implicitly restricts B-3 lots to a single principal use/structure	Ordinance permits uses listed (including B-1 uses) and contains no numerical limitation on uses or principal structures beyond explicit provisions	Held: No added numerical limit should be read into the ordinance; no prohibition on combined permitted uses
Whether the 7,067 sq ft canopy is a principal building and whether the WaWa is a fast-food restaurant	Canopy functions as a building (violating one-building limit); WaWa is a fast-food establishment under ordinance	Canopy is a structure (not a principal building); WaWa has no seating and is not a restaurant under local understanding	Held: Canopy is a structure, not a principal building; WaWa is not a fast-food restaurant under the ordinance as interpreted by the Zoning Officer and board

Key Cases Cited

Willoughby v. Planning Bd. of Deptford, 306 N.J. Super. 266 (App. Div.) (zoning boards make quasi-judicial decisions; deference standard)
Cell S. of N.J. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of W. Windsor, 172 N.J. 75 (Sup. Ct.) (board determinations presumed valid; challenger bears burden to show arbitrary or unreasonable action)
Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment, Sea Girt, 45 N.J. 268 (Sup. Ct.) (review of zoning board limited to record; defer to board absent clear abuse)
New Brunswick Cellular v. S. Plainfield Bd. of Adjustment, 160 N.J. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for overturning board action)
Smart SMR of N.Y., Inc. v. Fair Lawn Bd. of Adjustment, 152 N.J. 309 (Sup. Ct.) (burden on challenger and deference to local boards)
Bressman v. Gash, 131 N.J. 517 (Sup. Ct.) (appellate court applies same standards as trial court on board review)
Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 132 N.J. 509 (Sup. Ct.) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
Baghdikian v. Bd. of Adjustment of Ramsey, 247 N.J. Super. 45 (App. Div.) (technical rules of evidence do not apply at land use hearings)
D. Lobi Enters. v. Planning/Zoning Bd. of Sea Bright, 408 N.J. Super. 345 (App. Div.) (standards for reviewing board decisions)