The City of Newark recently enacted an Environmental Justice and Cumulative Impacts Ordinance. Under the landmark ordinance, developers will be required to provide certain sustainability information to the Board of Adjustment and Central Planning Board as part of an application for land use approvals. The City maintains that the ordinance
The Appellate Division recently addressed whether the Safe Dam Act (SDA) preempts local land use approval requirements as well as municipal ordinances. In United Water New Jersey v. Hillsdale, the court held that the Borough of Hillsdale was preempted by state law from applying such requirements to a dam improvement
In a recent decision, the Superior Court of New Jersey outlined the procedures that must be followed when litigation surrounding a planning board decision results in the filing and acceptance of a new application. The Facts of the Case Pawlynsky v. Princeton Planning Board centered on a parcel of
The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court recently issued an important decision regarding housing projects that feature affordable housing and mixed rate housing. In Advance at Branchburg II, LLC v. Township of Branchburg Board of Adjustment, the Court held that while affordable housing is an “inherently beneficial use”
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently ruled in the case of Ten Stary Dom Partnership v. Mauro, that the Borough of Bay Head’s planning board improperly denied a landowner’s request for a bulk zoning variance to build a one family home. The Court found that the board placed too
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently considered whether incorrect lot designations contained in a notice of public hearings on an application for a conditional use approval sufficiently complied with the provisions of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) to confer jurisdiction on the Planning Board. In this case, the
In TSI East Brunswick, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of East Brunswick, the Supreme Court of New Jersey considered the standard of proof required for securing a variance for a conditional use. The court concluded that applicants are not required to prove the negative criteria by an
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently clarified whether an application for a use variance based on the assertion that the site is “particularly suitable for the proposed use” requires proof that the project must be built on that site because it is the only one available. The issue arose because
