S.T.C. Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Hillsborough Tp.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1984 |
| Parties | S.T.C. CORPORATION, a corporation of the State of Delaware, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The PLANNING BOARD OF the TOWNSHIP OF HILLSBOROUGH, Somerset County, New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Harman R. Clark, Jr., Green Brook, for defendant-appellant.
Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Woodbridge, for plaintiff-respondent (Morris Brown, Stephen E. Barcan and Brian J. Molloy, Woodbridge, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges FRITZ, FURMAN and DEIGHAN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FURMAN, J.A.D.
We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Gaynor in his written opinion of March 8, 1983. We add the following.
The judgment below reversed the denial of site plan approval for a fuel oil storage facility and remanded "for the granting of site plan approval subject to such reasonable and necessary conditions as are appropriate to the proposed use and as may be imposed by the Planning Board in accordance with its statutory site plan review function." In our view, such reasonable and necessary conditions should include but are not limited to requirements that plaintiff S.T.C. Corporation assure an adequate water supply for its facility, that is, through the existing connection to the adjoining Federal Government water system or through a connection to be installed to a nearby public utility water main; and that it contribute to any off-site street improvements which are rendered necessary because of the heavy truck and other vehicular traffic to be generated by its proposed use over one or both of the public roads providing access to the site, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-42.
In December 1981, about ten months after the denial of preliminary site plan approval, a zoning amendment prohibiting plaintiff's proposed use was adopted. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-49 vests rights for three years, upon the granting of preliminary site approval, against zoning amendments barring or restricting the proposed use of the site, Bleznak v. Township of Evesham, 170 N.J.Super. 216, 406 A.2d 201 (Law Div.1979). On the appeal before us, preliminary site approval was denied, not granted.
We nevertheless apply N.J.S.A. 40:55D-49 in plaintiff's favor. As determined by Judge Gaynor, preliminary site plan approval should have been granted on the record before the Planning Board. Under general equitable principles, plaintiff should have the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pizzo Mantin Group v. Township of Randolph
... ... TOWNSHIP OF RANDOLPH and The Planning Board of the Township ... of Randolph, Defendants-Appellants and ... See S.T.C. Corp. v. Planning Bd., 194 N.J.Super. 333, 335, 476 A.2d 888 (App.Div.1984) ... ...
-
Riggs v. Long Beach Tp.
... ... See, e.g., S.T.C. Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Township of Hillsborough, 194 N.J.Super. 333, 476 A.2d ... ...
-
EC, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Eastampton
... ... judicial integrity justifies the inapplicability of the time of decision rule."); Tremarco Corp. v. Garzio, 32 N.J. 448, 457, 161 A. 2d 241 (1960) ; Lake Shore Estates, Inc. v. Denville Tp ... Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Hillsborough Tp., 194 N.J.Super. 333, 336, 476 A. 2d 888 (App.Div.1984) (time of decision rule does not ... ...
-
CK Dev. LLC v. Town of Nolensville
... ... Unit Development in Nolensville sought final approval from the planning commission of phase 7 of the development. The planning commission ... 421 Corp. v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville, 36 S.W.3d 469, 474 (Tenn. Ct. App ... See, e.g., S.T.C. Corp. v. Planning Bd. Of Hillsborough Township, 476 A.2d 888, 889 (N.J. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1984) (developer was ... ...