Price Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Tp. of Union
| Decision Date | 04 November 1994 |
| Citation | 279 N.J.Super. 207,652 A.2d 723 |
| Parties | The PRICE COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the TOWNSHIP OF UNION, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Fahey & Fahey, Springfield, for appellant (Brian W. Fahey, on the brief).
Woliansky & Doyle, Avenel, for respondent (Marc A. Woliansky, on the brief).
Before Judges J.H. COLEMAN, DREIER and VILLANUEVA.
In this municipal land use case, the substantial issue raised is whether a local zoning board of adjustment may consider off-site traffic conditions in determining whether an applicant for a use variance has satisfied the negative criteria required by N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70. The Law Division upheld the decision of the local zoning board of adjustment denying the use variance and six bulk variances essentially because of off-site traffic conditions. We now affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Menza in his oral and written opinions of March 31, 1993.
We add the following comments. Denial of the variance application does not mean the property has been zoned into substantial economic inutility. Here, the alleged economic inutility is the consequence of a deteriorating and aging structure situated in the midst of other thriving industrial businesses rather than the zoning ordinance. Functional obsolescence is not synonymous with economic inutility.
We are also persuaded that unlike a planning board which at times acts in a ministerial capacity, a local zoning board of adjustment acts as a quasi-judicial body. As such, it is called upon to become involved in a weighing process, much like a court, before determining whether the positive and/or negative criteria have been met. In determining whether the negative criteria have been satisfied, a board of adjustment must determine the impact approval of a requested use variance will have on the surrounding neighborhood and zoning plan.
The judgment under review is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allocco and Luccarelli v. Township of Holmdel
...in Price Company, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of the Tp. Of Union, 279 N.J.Super. 327, 652 A.2d 784 (Law Div.1993), aff'd 279 N.J.Super. 207, 652 A.2d 723 (App.Div.1994), involved the denial of a use variance, it still required the evaluation as to the negative criteria being met as set fort......
-
Depetris Family, LLC v. Medford Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment
...(stating that Board members could reject expert testimony and rely on their own knowledge of traffic conditions), aff'd o.b., 279 N.J. Super. 207 (App. Div. 1994). On appeal, the Board raises the following points for this court's consideration:POINT ITHE ZONING BOARD'S DENIAL OF THE REQUEST......
- Lesser, Matter of