Medical Center @ Princeton v. Township of Princeton
| Citation | 778 A.2d 482,343 N.J.Super. 177 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | A-6885-98T5,A-6931-98T5 |
| Court | Superior Court of New Jersey |
| Parties | 778 A.2d 482 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2001) NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION THE MEDICAL CENTER AT PRINCETON and PRINCETON MEDICAL PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, municipal agency of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant, and THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, municipal agency of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent, and JENNY CRUMILLER, JON CRUMILLER, ANITA GARONIAK, MARC MONSEAU, SUSANNA MONSEAU, DENNIS STARK, LISBETH WINARSKY and NORMAN WINARSKY, Defendants/Intervenors-Respondents. THE MEDICAL CENTER AT PRINCETON and PRINCETON MEDICAL PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, municipal agency of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent, and THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, municipal agency of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent/Cross-Respondent, and JENNY CRUMILLER, JON CRUMILLER, ANITA GARONIAK, MARC MONSEAU, SUSANNA MONSEAU, DENNIS STARK, LISBETH WINARSKY and NORMAN WINARSKY, Defendants/Intervenors-Appellants. DOCKET NOs.& SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION |
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, L-380-99.
Robert P. Casey argued the cause for appellant in A- 6885-98T5 and respondent in A-6931-98T5 Township of Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment (Lenox, Socey, Wilgus, Formidoni & Casey, attorneys; Mr. Casey on the brief in A-6885-98T5; in A-6931-98T5, attorneys rely on brief filed in A-6885-98T5).
Walter R. Bliss, Jr., argued the cause for appellants in A-6931-98T5 and respondents in A-6885-98T5 Jenny Crumiller, Jon Crumiller, Anita Garoniak, Marc Monseau, Susanna Monseau, Dennis Stark, Lisbeth Winarsky and Norman Winarsky (Mr. Bliss and Virginia Kerr, attorneys; Ms. Kerr, on the briefs).
Edwin W. Schmierer argued the cause for respondent in A-6885-98T5 and respondent/cross-respondent in A-6931- 98T5 Township of Princeton (Mason, Griffin & Pierson, attorneys; Mr. Schmierer, of counsel; Christopher H. DeGrezia and Georgia M. Fraser, on the briefs).
Christopher S. Tarr and Brian P. Sullivan argued the cause for respondents in A-6885-98T5 and Respondents/cross-appellants in A-6931-98T5 Medical Center at Princeton and Princeton Medical Properties (Smith, Stratton, Wise, Heher & Brennan, attorneys; Mr. Tarr and Mr. Sullivan, of counsel and on the briefs; Douglas S. Cohen, on the briefs).
Steven P. Goodell argued the cause for amicus curiae Princeton Borough in A-6885-98T5 (Herbert, Van Ness, Cayci & Goodell, attorneys; Mr. Goodell, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Wallace, Jr., Carchman and Lintner.
The opinion of the court was delivered by CARCHMAN, J.A.D.
These consolidated appeals and the underlying litigation reflect the tension between a well-established hospital forced to expand and modify its services and facilities to meet the changing needs of a modern, yet increasingly competitive health- care provider to its constituent community, and a likewise well- established residential community that seeks to preserve the nature and integrity of its character and surroundings. The intent of both the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A.40:55D-1 to -136, and decisions interpreting this statute provide an appropriate methodology for harmonizing these worthy but sometimes conflicting interests.
The issue presented on this appeal is whether the "back- office" functions of an admittedly inherently beneficial use under the MLUL, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70d, (section d), fall within the umbrella of the core use so as preclude the necessity of applying the enhanced burden of proof required for section d relief. Defendant Township of Princeton Zoning Board (the Board) denied the requested relief and, after appeal to the Law Division, Judge Feinberg, in a carefully reasoned and thorough opinion, answered the question in the positive.
We acknowledge that certain of the "back-office" functions of an admittedly inherently beneficial use may acquire the attributes of the primary or core-use. However, we conclude that the Board must apply a three-pronged test in determining the threshold question of whether certain uses which are not generally deemed inherently beneficial can be included within the scope of an inherently beneficial use. A zoning board must: (1) identify the proposed use and delineate its function; (2) establish how the proposed use is integrated into the core function of the inherently beneficial use; and (3) establish why the specific location of the proposed use is necessary to advance the purpose of inherently beneficial use. We deem this three- part test to be the threshold analysis prior to any Sica1 analysis.
In applying this test, we require that the Board deal with each proposed use and function as discrete and independent and make specific findings as to each proposed use rather than addressing the uses collectively. We accordingly affirm the judgment of Judge Feinberg remanding this matter to the Board, and the Board shall reconsider the proposed application consistent with this opinion. We further affirm the judgment upholding the validity of Princeton Township Ordinance 95-26.
We briefly set forth the procedural posture of this appeal. Plaintiffs The Medical Center at Princeton and Princeton Medical Properties, Inc. (PMP)2 (collectively "the Medical Center" or "hospital") filed an order to show cause and a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs seeking: (1) a declaration that the Board erred in determining that the use of five properties, located on Harris Road adjacent to the hospital, as offices was not an inherently beneficial use; (2) a declaration that the Board erred in denying the use variances; (3) a declaration that Princeton Township Ordinance 95-26 (the Ordinance) was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable; and (4) a stay of the enforcement of that Ordinance.
Responding to the order to show cause, Judge Feinberg imposed a stay that prohibited the Township from enforcing the Ordinance. The judge then granted leave to eight neighboring property owners, Jenny Crumiller, Jon Crumiller, Anita Garoniak, Marc Monseau, Susanna Monseau, Dennis Stark, Lisbeth Winarsky and Norman Winarsky (collectively "intervenors"), to intervene in opposition to the hospital's complaint. Thereafter, the judge issued a written decision remanding the variance case to the Board, but upholding the validity of the ordinance. The Board and intervenors filed notices of appeal, and the hospital filed a notice of cross-appeal. We subsequently issued an order permitting the Borough of Princeton to appear as amicus curiae.
Because of the long history of discord between the hospital and its neighbors, we commence our analysis by presenting an extensive and extravagant exposition of the factual background of this dispute.
The hospital is an acute health care facility that has served the Princeton and surrounding communities for approximately eighty years. During that period, the hospital has expanded from a donated farm house to a regional facility attempting to keep pace with the changing face of the health care profession and demands to remain competitive by being "state of the art." The hospital occupies an area in the Township consisting of five acres bordered, in part, by twenty-four residential lots. This area, which includes properties located on Harris Road, is referred to as the "hospital block." The hospital began acquiring these properties in 1958, and now owns twenty-three of the twenty-four properties.
This appeal focuses on five properties that were originally used as single-family and duplex residences and are located on the west side of Harris Road between Franklin and Henry Avenues in the Township's R-8 residential zone. The properties are located at street numbers 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 30 and 36 Harris Road, also known as section 36.01, lots 10, 11, 32, 36, 37, and 39, and block 7101, lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 on the municipal tax map. The buildings erected on these lots total 9304 square feet. As the hospital's medical services expanded, it utilized these acquired properties for administrative purposes, with specific uses changing as the needs of the hospital changed. We summarize the present and proposed uses of these properties abutting the hospital as follows:
ADDRESS OWNER YEAR ACQUIRED PROPOSED USE PRESENT USE
10 Harris Rd. PMP 1990 public relations accounting
12-14 Harris Rd. PMP 1991/1994 accounting vacant
16-18 Harris Rd. PMP 1982 accounting accounting
30 Harris Rd. Med. Ctr. 1984 planning, fund-raising planning, fund-raising, public relations
36 Harris Rd. Med. Ctr. 1976 purchasing purchasing
The nine thousand square feet encompassed by these administrative offices comprises in excess of one-third of the hospital's total space.
The following properties are also located on the west side of Harris Road:
ADDRESS OWNER YEAR ACQUIRED LOCATION PRESENT USE
2-4 Harris Rd. PMP 1990 Borough vacant
6 Harris Rd. PMP 1991/1994 Borough vacant
22 Harris Rd. Med. Ctr. 1982 Township vacant
26 Harris Rd. Mrs. Carnevale N/A Township residence
42 Harris Rd. Med. Ctr. 1965 Township short-term employee housing
In addition to these facilities, the hospital maintains other non-adjacent medical facilities in the community, including the Merwick Sub-Acute Rehabilitation Unit on Bayard Lane, the Princeton House on Herrontown Road, and an office complex with the Home Care Division on Bunn Drive.
The hospital's historical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Water New Jersey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the Bor. of Montvale, DOCKET NO. A-2526-09T3
...local conditions and are "best equipped to assess the merits of variance applications." Med. Ctr. at Princeton v. Twp. of Princeton Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 343 N.J. Super. 177, 198 (App. Div. 2001). "Courts give greater deference to variance denials than to grants of variances, since vari......
-
Med. Ctr. v. TP. OF PRINCETON ZONING BD. OF ADJ.
... 778 A.2d 482 343 N.J. Super. 177 The MEDICAL CENTER AT PRINCETON and Princeton Medical Properties, Inc., Plaintiffs-Respondents, ... The ... The Township of Princeton, municipal agency of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent, and ... Jenny ... ...