Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. of Springfield

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
• Citation: 315 N.J.Super. 427,718 A.2d 1218
• Parties: The STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of Delaware, and State Street Bank and Trust Company of Connecticut, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Trustee under a Trust Agreement dated
• Decision Date: 26 April 1994

Page 427

315 N.J.Super. 427 718 A.2d 1218 The STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, a Corporation of the
State of Delaware, and State Street Bank and Trust Company
of Connecticut, not in its individual capacity, but solely
as Trustee under a Trust Agreement dated April 26, 1994,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
The Colonial Association of Springfield and the Township of
Millburn, Defendants-Respondents/ Cross-Appellants.
Village Super Market, Inc. and Sumas Realty Corporation,
Intervenors/Cross-Appellants. Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division. Argued Oct. 7, 1998.
Decided Oct. 23, 1998.

[718 A.2d 1219]

Page 430

Neil J. Dworkin for defendant-appellant Board of Adjustment of Township of Springfield.

James V. Segreto, Haledon, for plaintiffs-respondent Stop & Shop Supermarket Company (Segreto & Segreto, attorneys; James V. Segreto, of counsel and on the brief).

Roger S. Clapp for defendant-respondent/cross-appellant Township of Millburn (Cooper, Rose & English, attorneys; Mr. Clapp and Bruce S. Goodman, on the brief).

Michael S. Feldman, Somerville, for defendant-respondent/cross-appellant Colonial Association of Springfield (Wasser & Feldman, attorneys; Mr. Feldman, on the brief).

Stephen E. Barcan, Woodbridge, for intervenors/cross-appellants Village Supermarket, Inc. and Sumas Realty Corp. (Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, attorneys; Mr. Barcan, of counsel and on the brief; Donna M. Jennings, on the brief).

Before Judges BAIME, A.A. RODRIGUEZ and KIMMELMAN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BAIME, P.J.A.D.

This appeal presents novel questions concerning the nature of rights that inhere in the grant of a use variance. The subject property is "split-zoned," the front portion located in a commercial zone and the rear portion located in a residential zone. In 1956, the Springfield Board of Adjustment (Board) granted a variance permitting Sak's Fifth Avenue to use the rear portion of the property for a parking lot accessory to its planned retail store. Several years later, the Board granted another variance allowing Sak's to extend the structure of its store into the residential zone. Stop & Shop Supermarket Company subsequently purchased the property and filed an application with the Board to operate a supermarket, relying on the variances granted previously to Sak's. Following a series of hearings, the Board denied Stop & Shop's

Page 431

application, finding that the proposed use of the property was not substantially similar or essentially duplicative of the use for which the variances were originally granted. The Board thus concluded that Stop & Shop was obliged to file a new application for a use variance. The Law Division overruled the Board, holding that the effect of the prior variances was to allow Stop & Shop to use the property for any purpose permitted in a commercial zone by the Township's zoning ordinance. We reverse. We hold that a use created by a variance may not be expanded or substantially changed without further application to the board of adjustment.

I.

The facts are not in dispute and are essentially a matter of public record. The property is located on Millburn Avenue straddling the Millburn-Springfield border. The bulk of the property is situated in Springfield. Under the Springfield ordinance, the front of the property is zoned commercial and the uses permitted include "[t]he sale of goods for ... consumption off the premises ... intended to meet direct consumer food, clothing, furnishing, recreational or other needs...." The rear of the property is zoned single family residential.

[718 A.2d 1220] In 1956 Sak's applied for a variance to permit the rear portion of the property to be used for off-street parking. In granting the variance, the Springfield Board found that the rear portion of the property did not "practically lend [itself to] the construction of houses." The Board concluded that "integrated development" of the land required use of the rear portion for a parking lot which would ease "traffic flow into the abutting residential areas" and alleviate traffic congestion.

In 1968, Sak's applied for a use variance to extend the rear portion of its department store building into the residential zone. The Springfield Board again granted Sak's application, finding that the department store "provide[d] shopping of a quality not otherwise available in the community." The Board further determined that extension of the building into the residential zone

Page 432

would not impair the value or use of the surrounding areas. Years later, Saks abandoned its department store operation at that location.

Stop & Shop purchased the property in 1996. Intending to operate a supermarket, Stop & Shop applied to the Springfield zoning officer for an interpretation whether its proposed use of the property would comport with the variances granted previously to Sak's. Stop & Shop's application and supporting documents were forwarded to the Board's attorney who concluded that the proposed use of the property as a supermarket differed substantially from Sak's prior operation of a retail store. The attorney suggested that Stop & Shop apply to the Board for a use variance.

Stop & Shop appealed the attorney's decision to the Board. Extensive hearings were conducted. We need not describe in detail all of the evidence presented. Suffice it to say, Stop & Shop contended that the variances previously granted to Sak's essentially converted the rear portion of the property from residentially zoned land to commercially zoned land. Although the argument advanced by Stop & Shop was ambiguously phrased, the gist of its contention was that it could develop the property for any purpose consistent with a permitted commercial use under the Springfield zoning ordinance. To paraphrase, Stop & Shop argued that the effect of the variances was to rezone the rear portion of the property from residential to commercial, and that changes in the intensity of use of the land and traffic were to be considered during the...