Opinion ID: 3010911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State Zoning Law

Text: In New Jersey, the power of zoning boards of adjustment to grant variances is prescribed by state statute. See N.J. STAT. ANN. S 40:55D-70 (West Supp. 1999). Under that statute, a board's power to grant certain variances, including a conditional-use variance, from the local zoning ordinance is subject to certain limitations. Two are relevant 16 here. First, there must be special reasons for granting the variance. Id. S 40:55D-70(d). Second, the local board may not grant a variance without a showing that it can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Id. New Jersey's courts refer to these limitations as creating positive and negative criteria that must be satisfied before a variance can be granted. See Sica v. Board of Adjustment, 127 N.J. 152, 156, 603 A.2d 30, 32 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1992). If the proposed use is deemed inherently beneficial, the positive criteria requirement is automatically satisfied. Nevertheless, once the positive and negative criteria are established, they must still be balanced against one another. See id. at 164, 603 A.2d at 36-37. The New Jersey Supreme Court has provided local boards with a four step procedure for balancing positive and negative criteria. First, the board should identify the public interest at stake and determine, in the general scheme of public importance, whether or not it is compelling. Second, the board should identify the detrimental effects of granting the variance and determine whether they are only minimal or more severe. Third, the board should reduce any detrimental effects, if possible, by imposing reasonable conditions on the proposed use. Finally, the board should weigh the positive against the negative criteria and determine whether, on balance, granting the variance would be a substantial detriment to the public good. See id. at 165-66, 603 A.2d at 37. The providers raise several challenges to the Board's balancing of the positive and negative criteria in this case. First, they claim that in evaluating the positive criteria, the Board erroneously focused on the proposed facility's deviations from the relevant conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. In their view, the positive criteria issue turns on the particular benefits of placing the facility at the proposed site, not on the extent to which it deviates from applicable zoning conditions. We disagree. In Coventry Square, Inc. v. Westwood Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 138 N.J. 285, 650 A.2d 340 (1994), the New 17 Jersey Supreme Court held that the standard for establishing the positive criteria required under New Jersey zoning law depends on the type of variance at issue. Where, as here, a variance is necessary to permit a nonconforming conditional use, the applicant need only prove that the site continues to be suitable for the proposed use despite its failure to comply with one or more conditions. See id. at 298-99, 650 A.2d at 346-47. The Coventry court explained that: [the conditional-use] standard of proof will focus both the applicant's and the board's attention on the specific deviation from conditions imposed by the ordinance, and will permit the board to find special reasons to support the variance only if it is persuaded that the non-compliance with conditions does not affect the suitability of the site for the conditional use. Id. at 298-99, 650 A.2d at 346-47. Thus, satisfying the positive criteria for a non-conforming conditional use appears to turn on its deviation from the applicable conditions, not on the benefits of locating it at the proposed site. Nevertheless, New Jersey law still required the Board to consider the benefits of the proposed facility at the balancing stage of its analysis. The record clearly shows that the Board did so, and that it found the benefits of locating the proposed facility at the proposed site to be outweighed by the negative consequences. The providers' remaining challenges are essentially derivative of the Telecommunications Act claims that we have already resolved. First, they claim that the Board erroneously dismissed expert testimony that the proposed monopole would have no detrimental impact on the value of surrounding homes, and thus gave too much weight to the negative criteria. We have already held that the Board's findings on this issue were supported by substantial evidence. Second, they renew their claim that the Board had no authority to evaluate the quality of existing wireless service, much less determine that it is adequate, and to discount the positive criteria accordingly. Again, we have already held that the Board was not barred from evaluating the quality of existing wireless service, though its discretion in that area is subject to limitations. Finally, the providers 18 claim that the Board's assessment of existing wireless service, and thus the weight given to the positive criteria, is erroneous because it improperly dismisses expert testimony, and relies instead on incompetent evidence. As we have already noted, we agree with the providers on this point. Consequently, we must reverse the district court's summary judgment on the communication provider's state law claim. If, on remand, the Board reaches the balancing stage, it must adjust the weight given to the positive criteria (i.e., the public benefit of enhancing personal wireless services in and around Ho-Ho-Kus) based on a proper evaluation of existing service, and in compliance with applicable state law.