In Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Franklin Twp., the Supreme Court of New Jersey (MLUL) clarified the Time of Application Rule. It held that an application for development is only complete when all required documents are submitted for review, including all documents mandated under a municipal
In Mikhail v. Lauritsen, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court addressed when municipalities may extinguish a nonconforming use. The court specifically considered the test for determining when a nonconforming use has been more than partially destroyed in making this evaluation. Legal Background N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68 authorizes the restoration
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently agreed to consider Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Franklin. The case involves when a submission to the planning board should be considered an “application for development” that triggers the “time of application rule.” Time of
Gov. Chris Christie recently signed legislation aimed to make it easier for New Jersey communities to pursue municipal consolidation. Senate Bill 956 authorizes special emergency appropriations for the payment of certain expenses incurred to implement a municipal consolidation. Consolidations are governed by the Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act, which
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued its much-anticipated decision regarding whether municipalities must satisfy the affordable housing need which arose from the end of the second-round housing cycle in 1999 to the present, referred to as the “gap period.” In In Re Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed By Various Municipalities,
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently struck down a municipal ban of digital billboards. In its decision in E&J Equities v. Board of Adjustment of Franklin Township, the state’s highest court held that the ordinance was unconstitutional under both the United States and New Jersey constitutions. The Facts of
The Supreme Court of New Jersey has agreed to consider whether municipal affordable housing obligations include a “separate and discrete” gap-period obligation from 1999 through 2015, when the various “growth share” regulations were repeatedly invalidated by the courts. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case by the end
In Kenneth M. Ruskowski v. Director, Division of Taxation, the Tax Court of New Jersey held that the plaintiff’s in lieu tax payments (PILOT payments) did not constitute “property taxes,” as the term is defined under N.J.S.A. 54:4-8.67. Accordingly, the court ruled that the Director of the Division of Taxation
