Court Opinion

ID: 9912932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 15:05:51.300534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:22.118260
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                               APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
        This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
     internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-0034-22

FERRIS FARMS OF EAST
BRUNSWICK, LLC,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF EAST
BRUNSWICK, TOWNSHIP
COUNCIL OF EAST
BRUNSWICK, TOWNSHIP
OF EAST BRUNSWICK
PLANNING BOARD,
and TOWNSHIP OF EAST
BRUNSWICK ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,

     Defendants-Appellants.
________________________

                   Argued October 10, 2023 – Decided December 26, 2023

                   Before Judges Gilson, Berdote Byrne, and Bishop-
                   Thompson.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-7257-20.
            Jay A. Weiner argued the cause for appellants
            Township of East Brunswick Zoning Board of
            Adjustment (Weiner & Weiner, PC, attorneys; Jay A.
            Weiner, of counsel and on the brief).

            Craig M. Gianetti argued the cause for respondent (Day
            Pitney LLP, attorneys; Craig M. Gianetti, of counsel
            and on the brief; Amanda M. Kronemeyer, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      In this prerogative writs matter, defendant Township of East Brunswick

Zoning Board of Adjustment's (Board) appeals from the July 27, 2022 order,

which incorporated a May 31, 2022 order, reversing and vacating the Board's

denial of plaintiff Ferris Farm Inc. of East Brunswick, LLC's use and density

variance application. Having considered the arguments, the record, and the

applicable legal principles, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a

new determination by the Board.

                                       I.

      We summarize the relevant facts from the record. Plaintiff owns five

acres in the Township of East Brunswick (Township) at 690 Cranbury Road,

designated as Block 321, Lot 6.03. The property is within the Township's R-1

Single Family Rural Residential Zone (R-1 Zone) that permits single-family

detached homes on one-acre lots. Known as "Ferris Farms Garden Center," it is

                                                                           A-0034-22
                                       2
a "highly intense, non-conforming commercial use" consisting of buildings,

greenhouses, and parking spaces within the R-1 Zone.

      Plaintiff submitted an application to the Board to develop fifty units of

townhouses consisting of forty market rate units and ten affordable units at a

density rate of ten units per acre. The application sought bifurcated use and

density variances and, if granted, followed with a preliminary and final site plan

approval for the development.

      The Board held public hearings on January 17, April 4, June 20, October

3, November 21, December 19, 2019, and on July 2, 2020 concerning plaintiff's

original, first amended, and second amended applications. During the hearings,

plaintiff's proposed plan underwent two iterations.          The first amended

application reduced the proposal to thirty-six townhouse units. The second

amended application further reduced the site plan to thirty townhouse units and

a density of six units per acre. The proposed development consists of five

buildings, two buildings with six units, one building with eight units, one

building with seven units, and one building with three units. All are three-

bedroom units.

      The second amended plan depicted each townhouse driveway as twenty

feet wide with a paver brick line down the center of driveways between

neighbors. A stop sign, stop bar, curb ramps, and a crosswalk had been added

                                                                            A-0034-22
                                        3
at Cranbury Road. No parking signs were added throughout the development

and the cul-de-sac area was striped as a fire lane because of comments from the

Township's fire official. The size of the stormwater management basin had been

increased and exceeded the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

standards. The revised plan also kept existing trees along the south border to be

contained within a proposed conservation easement. Trash can locations had

been depicted along the street for weekly pickup also based on the Board's

comment.

      In support of its application that the site could accommodate the proposed

townhouse development, plaintiff presented expert witnesses including an

architect, civil engineer, planner, traffic consultant, environment consultant,

professional planner, and a real estate sales and marketing consultant. The

Board presented no independent testimony from its professionals to refute, or

raise issue with, plaintiff's experts.   During the hearings, the public posed

questions concerning the stormwater management and buffering, which were

addressed by the civil engineer.

      At the hearings, the Board focused on snow removal, electric vehicle

charging stations, the homeowners' association, the sidewalk on Cranbury Road,

and the turning direction of residents leaving their driveways. The Board also

focused on inadequate visitor parking for holiday and "potential overflow ."

                                                                           A-0034-22
                                         4
Although the Board acknowledged the Residential Site Improvement Standards

were "probably adequate," they also noted the police department found the

proposed 135 physical spaces to be inadequate.         Additionally, the Board

declined to permit parallel parking on the proposed thirty-foot roadway for guest

parking.

      The Board was advised plaintiff met with the lone objector, a neighboring

homeowner, and agreed to a "24-foot-wide access and utility easement"

dedicated to the homeowner, with a "single water" and "single sewer lateral" for

one unit. Plaintiff also agreed to preserve the wood line along the shared

property line in a conservation easement and to provide additional landscaping

to screen the parking spaces and detention basin. At the December hearing, the

attorney for the lone objector advised the Board that the homeowner was

satisfied with the second amended application.

      On July 2, 2020, the Board heard recommendations by its professional

staff. The Board then denied the application in a 6-1 vote without deliberation,

which rendered the bifurcated site plan moot. Each Board member placed the

reasons for denial on the record.

      On September 3, 2020, the Board issued a twelve-page resolution

memorializing its July 2 decision. The Board found "the proposed project [was]

not appropriate and not suitable at the proposed site for the reasons provided on

                                                                           A-0034-22
                                       5
the record;" and based on the testimony presented the "[a]pplica[tion] [did] not

satisf[y] the positive and negative requirements for the [u]se [v]ariance pursuant

to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(1) and N.J.S.A. 40:55-70(d)(5), and that it cannot be

granted without substantial impairing the intent and purpose of the Township's

Master Plan and Zoning Ordinances."

      Plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, challenging the

Board's action as arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. It sought reversal of

the Board's denial and requested approval of its second amended application.

The Board filed an answer and separate defenses.

      Following a one-day trial, the trial court reserved decision. On May 31,

2022, the trial court entered an "order for judgment and other related relief" and

issued a comprehensive forty-three-page written decision. After conducting a

"scrutinizing review and analysis of the transcripts, the [a]pplication, and the

proofs adduced in the record," the court found the "Board's denial of [p]laintiff's

[a]pplication was without foundation, arbitrary, capricious[,] and unreasonable."

The court reversed and vacated the Board's denial of plaintiff's second amended

application. The court also directed the Board to adopt a resolution approving

plaintiff's application, granting the use and density variances, and granting

plaintiff leave to submit a follow-up development application for preliminary

and final site plan approval for the proposed development.

                                                                             A-0034-22
                                        6
     Thereafter on July 27, 2022, the trial court entered final judgment

incorporating the May 31 order and the parties' consent order dismissing the

remaining claims.

                                     II.

     On appeal, defendant raises the following points:

           POINT I

           THE   TRIAL   COURT    ERRED     IN   ITS
           DETERMINATION      THAT      DEFEN[]DANT
           TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK ZONING
           BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS ARBITRARY,
           CAPRICIOUS, AND UNREASONABLE IN ITS
           DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION
           FOR THE USE AND DENSITY VARIANCES
           SOUGHT.

           POINT II

           THE   TRIAL    COURT    ERRED   IN   ITS
           DETERMINATION THAT PLAIN[]TIFF SATISFIED
           THE POSITIVE CRITERIA THRESHOLD NEEDED
           FOR THE USE AND DENSITY VARIANCES
           SOUGHT.

           POINT III

           THE   TRIAL   COURT    ERRED   IN   ITS
           DETERMINATION THAT PLAINTIFF SATISFIED
           THE NEGATIVE CRITERIA THRESHOLD NEEDED
           FOR THE USE AND DENSITY VARIANCES
           SOUGHT.

                                                                      A-0034-22
                                     7
            POINT IV

            THE    TRIAL  COURT    ERRED    IN   ITS
            DETERMINATION      THAT      DEFENDANT
            TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK ZONING
            BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT’S RESOLUTION
            MEMORIALIZING    ITS    DECISION   WAS
            INADEQUATE AND/OR INSUFFI[]CIENT TO
            SUPPORT ITS DETERMINATION, THEREBY
            RENDERING THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION
            AR[B]ITRARY,      CAPRICIOUS,      AND
            UNREASONABLE.

      "When reviewing a trial court's decision regarding the validity of a local

board's determination, 'we are bound by the same standards as . . . the trial

court.'" Jacoby v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of Bor. of Englewood Cliffs, 442 N.J.

Super. 450, 462 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting Fallone Props., L.L.C. v. Bethlehem

Twp. Plan. Bd., 369 N.J. Super. 552, 562 (App. Div. 2004)). "We have long

recognized that zoning boards, 'because of their peculiar knowledge of local

conditions[,] must be allowed wide latitude in the exercise of delegated

discretion.'" Price v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263, 284 (2013) (alteration in

original) (quoting Kramer v. Bd. of Adj., Sea Girt, 45 N.J. 268, 296 (1965)).

However, we review de novo a board's conclusions of law. Wyzykowski v.

Rizas, 132 N.J. 509, 518 (1993). Thus, we exercise plenary review of a board's

interpretation of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -

65. See Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police and Firemen's Retirement Sys., 206 N.J.

                                                                          A-0034-22
                                       8
14, 27 (2011) (stating a court is "'in no way bound by an agency's interpretation

of a statute'") (quoting Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85, 93,

312 A.2d 497 (1973)); Motley v. Borough of Seaside Park Zoning Bd. of Adj.,

430 N.J. Super. 132, 146 (App. Div.) (reviewing de novo board of adjustment's

interpretation of MLUL), certif. denied, 215 N.J. 485 (2013).

      We give deference to the actions and factual findings of local boards.

Jacoby, 442 N.J. Super. at 462. "A board's decision 'is presumptively valid, and

is reversible only if arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.'" Smart SMR of

N.Y., Inc. v. Bor. of Fair Lawn Bd. of Adj., 152 N.J. 309, 327 (1998) (quoting

Sica v. Bd. of Adj. of Wall, 127 N.J. 152, 166-67 (1992)); see also Kane Props.,

LLC v. City of Hoboken, 214 N.J. 199, 229 (2013). "We do not review the

wisdom of [a planning board's] decision, rather . . . we merely 'determine

whether the board could reasonably have reached its decision.'" Pullen v. Twp.

of S. Plainfield Plan. Bd., 297 N.J. Super. 1, 6-7 (App. Div. 1996) (quoting Davis

Enters, v. Karpf, 105 N.J. 476, 485 (1987)). "Accordingly, we will not disturb

a board's decision unless we find a clear abuse of discretion." Cell S. of N.J.,

Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of W. Windsor Twp., 172 N.J. 75, 82 (2002).

      We first address whether the trial court erred in finding plaintiff presented

sufficient proofs at the hearing to satisfy the criteria to be granted a use variance.

The MLUL governs land use and development planning generally and

                                                                               A-0034-22
                                          9
specifically authorizes zoning boards to grant variances under circumstances

defined in the statute. The statute requires a finding of "special reasons" or

positive criteria, and "a showing that such variance or other relief 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" or negative

criteria. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d).

      To satisfy the "special reasons" or positive criteria as a predicate to

granting a use variance under (d)(1), an applicant must prove:         (1) the use

"inherently serves the public good"; (2) "the use promotes the general welfare

because the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use"; or (3)

the applicant would experience "undue hardship," because "the property cannot

reasonably be developed with a conforming use." Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J.

1, 4 (1987); see also Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Bd. of Adj. of Springfield,

162 N.J. 418, 430-31 (2000).

      However, when an applicant seeks a d(5) variance from density

restrictions with a d(1) use variance, the applicant need not demonstrate that the

property is "particularly suitable to more intense development" to satisfy the

"special reasons" requirement under the MLUL.          Coventry Square, Inc. v.

Westwood Zoning Bd. of Adj., 138 N.J. 285, 287 (1994); Price, 214 N.J. at 296-

97; Grubbs v. Slothower, 389 N.J. Super. 377, 388 (App. Div. 2007). Instead,

                                                                             A-0034-22
                                       10
the applicant need only show that the particular site will "accommodate the

problems associated with the proposed use with [a greater density] than

permitted by the ordinance." Id. at 398.

      Following an exhaustive review of the record, the court examined the

findings of fact made by the Board, disagreed, and found the Board was

"incapable of refuting the fact that the proposed residential use is permitte d in

the R-1 Zone (albeit for single-family, not the townhome type) and that, if the

use variance were granted, it would eliminate the pre-existing, nonconforming

use to which the [p]roperty was being utilized" as a retail garden center. The

court further determined the elimination of the garden center, "that fact alone,

could qualify as a "special reason" that satisfied the "positive criteria" under the

MLUL to qualify it for a (d)(1) use variance.

      In finding plaintiff demonstrated "special reasons" for the d(1) and d(5)

variances sought, the court analyzed whether plaintiff satisfied the positive

criteria. The court reasoned the record was "undisputed that residential use is

permitted in the R-1 Zone, but that the unit type and density were not." Upon

determining the d(1) and d(5) were "inextricably intertwined," the court

concluded plaintiff satisfied the positive criteria by "demonstrating with

overwhelming evidence" and the exhaustive and "uncontroverted" testimony

                                                                              A-0034-22
                                        11
from the planning expert that the site was "particularly suited for a townhouse

development" and "furthered the purposes of zoning."

      As to the negative criteria, the court found plaintiff "proved that a grant

of the use and density it sought could be approved by the Board and would not

be a "substantial detriment to the public good." The court highlighted the

"'hodgepodge' of residential and commercial uses along the Cranbury Road

corridor – many of which were approved by use variance by the Board." The

court also noted "the surrounding area is residential just as [the proposed

development] would be, and it was further demonstrated that the unit type and

density (as reduced) would be consistent with most of the surrounding

properties." Based on the record, the court concluded plaintiff satisfied the first

prong of the negative criteria.

      The court next considered the second prong and concluded plaintiff

proved the grant of the use and density variance could be approved by the Board

and would not "substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan

and zoning ordinance."      It also determined that the record was devoid of

substantial credible evidence to support the Board’s findings and conclusions

concerning a substantial impairment to the public good. The court concluded

the Board's "denial was rendered in spite of preponderating, uncontroverted and

substantial, credible evidence adduced by the [p]laintiff in the record that

                                                                             A-0034-22
                                       12
supported – and proved – its satisfaction of both the positive and negative

criteria." Thus, the court found that the record "warranted the Board’s grant of

the use variance and attendant density variance," and approval of the bifurcated

application.

      We are persuaded that the proposed development for thirty-unit

townhouses does not run afoul of a "determination that the use ordinarily should

not be allowed in the zoning district." Coventry Square, 138 N.J. at 287. We

are satisfied the trial court's findings that plaintiff satisfied the positive and

negative criteria are amply supported by the record. We also conclude the record

supported the trial court's findings that residential use is permitted within the R-

1 Zone and the proposed development is consistent with "goal 28" of the 2015

Master Plan Reexamination to establish "appropriate development standards for

lots which adjoin high density residential and commercial areas ."            As a

consequence, we find no error in the court's conclusions that the Board neither

followed the statutory guidelines nor properly exercised its discretion.

Columbro v. Lebanon Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 424 N.J. Super. 501, 508 (App.

Div. 2012) (quoting Med. Ctr. at Princeton v. Twp of Princeton Zoning Bd. of

Adj., 343 N.J. Super. 177, 199 (2001)).

      We also reject the Board's contention that the trial court erred in finding

the Board's denial was arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious.          A board's

                                                                              A-0034-22
                                        13
resolution "must contain sufficient findings, based on the proofs submitted, to

satisfy a reviewing court that the board has analyzed the applicant's variance

request in accordance with the statute and in light of the municipality's master

plan and zoning ordinances." N.Y. SMSA, 370 N.J. Super. at 333. We have

rejected as deficient memorializing resolutions that "summarize[d], in a very

cursory fashion, the testimony presented by [the applicant's] witnesses, and

reiterate[d] selected comments by Board members and the public."              Ibid.

"[S]tatements of individual Planning Board members, 'represent informal

verbalizations of the speaker's transitory thoughts, they cannot be equated to

deliberative findings of fact . . . . '" Rocky Hill Citizens for Responsible Growth

v. Plan. Bd. of Rocky Hill, 406 N.J. Super. 384, 413 (App. Div. 2009) (quoting

N.Y. SMSA v. Bd. of Adj. of Twp. of Weehawken, 370 N.J. Super. 319, 334

(App. Div. 2004)).

      Although a zoning board may reject an applicant's expert testimony, it

must do so on an identified basis, such as reliance on contrary expert testimony,

and should not rely on "bare allegations or unsubstantiated beliefs." N.Y.

SMSA, 370 N.J. Super. at 338 (citing Cell S. of N.J., Inc., 172 N.J. at 87). A

resolution relying on comments and concerns from board members or residents

will not satisfy a board's obligation to ground its decision on evidence presented

during a hearing. Cell S. of N.J., Inc., 172 N.J. at 88 (holding a board's decision

                                                                             A-0034-22
                                       14
must be "root[ed] . . . in substantiated proofs rather than unsupported

allegations."). A board's reliance upon non-expert testimony from its members

or concerns voiced by residents rather than qualified expert testimony to prove

the adverse effects associated with a requested variance renders a board's

decision arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. Ibid.

      Here, the trial court relied on N.Y. SMSA and found the Board's resolution

contained a "mere recital of testimony" and "conclusory statements couched in

statutory language" contrary to the requirements of applicable law. The court

explained the Board's findings in the resolution were in "clear conflict" with the

"uncontroverted testimony" provided by plaintiff's expert witnesses. Moreover,

the "conclusions reached and recited in the [r]esolution lacked substantial,

credible evidence in the record to support" the Board's action.

      Having reviewed the record, we conclude the Board's resolution was

deficient because it simply identified the applicant, described the proposed

development, provided a cursory summary of the expert witness testimony, and

reiterated select comments by board members as a basis for the denial of the

application. In sum, the Board's resolution failed to meet the requirements of

N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(g). See Medici, 107 N.J. at 23.

      We are satisfied the trial court expressed his findings of fact and

conclusions of law in a cogent, written opinion. As discussed above, we are

                                                                            A-0034-22
                                       15
cognizant of plaintiff's burden of proof, which was met by overwhelming and

uncontroverted evidence. Medical Realty Assoc. v. Bd. of Adj., 228 N.J. Super.

226, 233 (App. Div. 1988); see also N.Y. SMSA, 370 N.J. Super. at 331. We

find no error in the trial court's conclusion that the Board's action in denying

plaintiff's application was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.

      We also agree with the court's conclusion that the Board's resolution lacks

the fact-finding required by Medici. However, we conclude the trial court

mistakenly exercised its discretion in directing the Board to adopt a resolution

approving plaintiff's application, granting the use and density variances, and

granting plaintiff leave to submit a follow-up development application for

preliminary and final site plan approval for the proposed development. See Jock

v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of Wall, 184 N.J. 562, 597 (2005) (explaining that

generally a court should not make a decision for a zoning board). Instead, we

hold that the Board should be given an opportunity to reconsider the application

on the existing record.

      Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the trial court's order and direct

that the matter be remanded to the Board. The Board is to reconsider the

application on the existing record and take a new vote on the application. If the

Board votes to deny the application, its resolution must expressly explain how

it has overcome the errors identified by the trial court. If it cannot explain how

                                                                            A-0034-22
                                       16
it can overcome those errors, the Board should vote to approve the application.

Either way, the Board shall issue a new resolution, setting forth specific findings

of fact to support its decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(g). See

Smith v. Fair Haven Zoning Bd. of Adj., 335 N.J. Super. 111, 123 (App. Div.

2000).

      Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                             A-0034-22
                                       17