AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Woodbridge township zoning ordinance3/9/2024 ![]() ![]() On appeal, the Appellate Division also upheld the Board’s decision. The applicant appealed the decision and lost at the trial level. It also noted that the detriment to traffic conditions and safety concerns in the parking lot also weighed against granting the application. The proofs also failed to show that the day care was needed in this area of the community. In its resolution, the zoning board recognized that the plaintiff had presented an application for an inherently beneficial use, but it stated that there was an absence of proof that the use was particularly well suited for the location of the property. 40:55D-70(c) for impervious and landscape coverage of the lot.Īfter considering the testimony of expert witnesses, town officials, and local residents, the Zoning Board of Adjustment denied the plaintiff’s application for variances and site plan approval. 40:55D-70(d)(1), as well as bulk variances pursuant to N.J.S.A. Because such a facility is not a permitted use under the municipality’s zoning ordinance, Inman needed a use variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. ![]() sought to build a child care center in a residentially zoned district in Woodbridge Township. of Adjustment, the court determined that the local zoning board properly weighed both the positive and negative factors, thereby rendering its decision not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. A recent decision by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court highlights the balancing process required for a use variance even when an entity proposes an inherently beneficial use of its property. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |