Case Law Summaries

Concerned Citizens for a Better Hillsborough, Inc. v. Hillsborough Township Planning Board

ZONING; SHOPPING CENTERS; DEFINITIONS—There is no commonly accepted definition of a community shopping center, and if a municipality wants to define one by size, it will need to do so explicitly.

• Opinion Date: March 18, 2003
• Real Property Law

Gilsenan, LLP v. Home Depot USA, Inc.

ZONING; SETTLEMENTS—Where an applicant and an objector reach an apparent settlement at a land use board meeting, it is not proper for the objector to pursue a court appeal of the resulting application approval.

• Opinion Date: January 13, 2003
• Real Property Law

Rivera v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Collingswood

ZONING; PRE-EXISTING USE; INTERPRETATION—A court may look at the logical intent of the drafters in its understanding of how a zoning ordinance defines a “triplex” apartment building.

• Opinion Date: April 3, 2003
• Real Property Law

Novelli v. Zoning Board of Adjustment for Township of Gloucester

ZONING; PRE-EXISTING USE—Even though the original business and its successor may both be retail repair businesses, it is an impermissible expansion of a pre-existing use if the new business is designed to attract customers to the property and the old business did not.

• Opinion Date: December 15, 2003
• Real Property Law

Mendelsohn v. New Jersey Pinelands Commission

ZONING; PINELANDS COMMISSION; APPROVALS—Even though the Pinelands Commission appears to have statutory approval only to review final municipal approvals, reviews of preliminary approvals are warranted to alert landowners at an early stage regarding conformance of their plans to the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.

• Opinion Date: October 1, 2003
• Real Property Law

Mountain Hill, LLC v. Middletown Twp.

ZONING; ORDINANCES; CONFLICTS OF INTEREST—Even if a municipal council member with a financial tie to a party that would be affected by a council vote, such as an attorney for a developer, votes in a way that is adverse to that interest, the vote is still tainted and invalid.

• Opinion Date: April 16, 2003
• Real Property Law

Mocco v. Borough of Sayerville

ZONING; ORDINANCES—Adoption of a zoning ordinance that affects a particular property is not arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious just because it serves to limit development possibilities, and hence profitability.

• Opinion Date: April 14, 2003
• Real Property Law

State of New Jersey v. Furman

ZONING; ORDINANCES—When used as the basis for a criminal or quasi-criminal charge, a zoning ordinances is to be strictly construed against the State.

• Opinion Date: June 24, 2003
• Real Property Law

Manzo v. The Mayor and Township Council of the Township of Marlboro

ZONING; ORDINANCES—Even if a restrictive zoning ordinance is adopted for a proper purpose, as a court must assume in the first instance, it is still necessary that the means employed by the ordinance has some legitimate relationship to that purpose.

• Opinion Date: November 10, 2003
• Real Property Law

Pennington Personal Storage, LLC v. Ferrara

ZONING; ORDINANCES—Neither a municipality nor its planning board have any obligation to a developer to tell it that the zoning laws might be changing so as to preclude a project and make it wasteful to apply for land use approvals in the first place.

• Opinion Date: November 26, 2003
• Real Property Law