TSI East Brunswick, LLC v. Zoning Board
215 N.J. 26
| N.J. | 2013Background
- New Vornado owns a large tract in East Brunswick in HC-2 zone with a proposed LA Fitness, a for-profit health club, in a building on the tract
- The zoning ordinance prohibits for-profit health clubs within 500 feet of residences, measured from the edge of the lot
- New Vornado sought a conditional use variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(3) to locate the facility despite the 500-foot rule
- TSI East Brunswick, owner of a competing health club within 500 feet, objected and was a principal opponent at the Zoning Board
- The Zoning Board granted the conditional use variance after considering location, buffering by Route 18, and anticipated minimal negative impact, with reliance on a planner’s testimony
- The Appellate Division affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certification to address whether the enhanced proof standard for negative criteria applies to conditional use variances
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enhanced proof is required for the negative criteria in a conditional use variance | TSI argues Medici applies; enhanced proof required | New Vornado argues Coventry Square governs; no enhanced proof needed | Enhanced proof not required for negative criteria ( Coventry Square governs) |
| Whether Coventry Square standard focuses on site-specific deviations for conditional uses | Plaintiff contends standard imposes stricter burden | Board weighed deviations; standard should be Coventry Square-based | Court adopts Coventry Square framework; focus on site-specific deviations and reconcilability with zone |
| Proper standard of review for a (d)(3) conditional use variance in this context | Argues Medici standard for (d)(1) variance should apply | Coventry Square standard appropriate for conditional use variance | Conditional use variance analyzed under Coventry Square approach; not required to meet Medici’s enhanced proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Coventry Square, Inc. v. Westwood Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 138 N.J. 285 (N.J. 1994) (relaxes proof burden for negative criteria in conditional uses; focus on deviations from conditions)
- Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1987) (established enhanced proof standard for negative criteria in use variances)
- Sica v. Bd. of Adjustment, 127 N.J. 152 (N.J. 1992) (recognizes enhanced proof rule does not apply to inherently beneficial uses)
- Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 337 N.J. Super. 398 (App.Div. 2001) (discusses negative criteria standard in conditional uses)
- House of Fire Christian Church v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 379 N.J. Super. 526 (App.Div. 2005) (addressed conditional use standard and proofs; not controlling on Medici in conditional context)
- Meridian Quality Care, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 355 N.J. Super. 328 (App.Div. 2002) (commented on conditional use variance standard; noted related analyses)
- CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Borough of Lebanon Planning Bd., 414 N.J. Super. 563 (App.Div. 2010) (discussed Coventry Square principles in conditional use variance context)