There were no published opinions on land use or zoning in the New Jersey appeals courts this week. Among unpublished opinions, three touched on land use or zoning matters.
1. In RIYA Cranbury Hotel, LLC v. Z.B.A. of Twp. of Cranbury, et al., an Appellate Division panel affirmed a trial court’s holdings that a banquet facility constituted a restaurant under the town’s zoning ordinance; that an architectural feature did not constitute a sign, under the same ordinance; and that the granting of a D variance permitting a wine shop in a zone whose ordinances did not specifically allow such a use exceeded the limited powers of discretion that zoning boards enjoy to grant use variances.
2. In Kanter v. the Municipal Council of Wallington, et al., a pro se appellant challenged a decision by the local zoning board to grant a variance to a politically-connected company. The board’s decision had subsequently been upheld by the municipal council, and then by the Superior Court, on the challenged points. The case did not raise any substantive issues of New Jersey land use or zoning law, but instead raised procedural points, mainly stemming from alleged technical violations of the Open Public Meetings Act. Here, the Appellate Division panel affirmed the trial court’s disposition of the case, allowing the board’s decision to stand.
3. Finally, in Ginsburg Development Companies., et al. v. Twp. of Harrison, an A.D. panel vacated a trial court’s holding that a developer would not have to pay its share of infrastructure improvements, pursuant to a developer’s agreement, until it commenced building. The A.D. distinguished the facts of this case from those of two precedents on which the lower court had relied. The panel found, inter alia, that because the developer had not disavowed its plans (which would necessitate the improvements), or sought to modify those plans in such a way that its presumptive pro rata share of the resulting costs would change, that the facts of this case were inconsistent with those of the precedents. The judges also noted that a contract had already been awarded for the work of those improvements, and that, in awarding that contract, the township had acted pursuant to its agreement with the developer.