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
New Jersey lawmakers are currently considering legislation that would increase oversight over local tax abatement agreements. Senate Bill 1701 aims increase transparency regarding payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs), particularly with respect to how they impact school funding. As previously discussed in the Scarinci Hollenbeck Government & Law Blog, many New
New Jersey municipalities may need to amend their local ordinances in light of recent changes made to the state’s Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). The new law signed in January, P.L. 2017 C. 312, restricts when a municipality can require performance and maintenance guarantees from a developer. Limits on Performance
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017 (H.R. 3017). The legislation reauthorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Brownfields Program. Basics of EPA’s Brownfield Program There are currently more than 450,000 brownfield sites in the United States. The term “brownfield
In Glenn v. City of Cape May Planning Board, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court held that a land use application was not barred by res judicata because the City of Cape May Planning Board never reached the full merits of earlier applications related to the site.
In Shipyard Associates v. Hoboken Planning Board, the Appellate Division held that a developer was entitled to automatic approval of a controversial plan to build two high-rise buildings on the Hoboken waterfront because the Hoboken Planning Board (Board) refused to hold a hearing on the application while related litigation was