NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
|
|
- Evelyn Manning
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. FRANK PAGANO, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP JOINT LAND USE BOARD; MAIN STREET AT WOOLWICH, LLC; WOOLWICH COMMONS, LLC; and WOOLWICH CROSSINGS, LLC, Defendants-Respondents. BENJAMIN AMMONS, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, MAIN STREET AT WOOLWICH, LLC; WOOLWICH, LLC; WOOLWICH CROSSINGS, LLC; and THE JOINT LAND USE BOARD OF WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP, Defendants-Respondents. Argued April 14, 2015 Decided August 7, 2015 Before Judges Hayden and Sumners. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Docket No. L and L
2 PER CURIAM R.S. Gasiorowski argued the cause for appellant Benjamin Ammons (Gasiorowski & Holobinko, attorneys; Mr. Gasiorowski, on the brief). Stephen R. Nehmad argued the cause for respondents Main Street at Woolwich (Nehmad Perillo & Davis and Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, attorneys; Mr. Nehmad and Tracy A. Siebold, on the brief). Michael A. Aimino argued the cause for respondents Woolwich Township Joint Land Use Board (Aimino & Deenen, attorneys; Mr. Aimino, on the brief). Plaintiff Benjamin Ammons appeals from an April 24, 2014 Law Division order granting summary judgment to defendants Main Street at Woolwich, LLC, Woolwich Commons, LLC, and Woolwich Crossings, LLC (collectively "Landowner") and Woolwich Township Joint Land Use Board (Board). Ammons' complaint alleged the Board erred by approving the Landowner's application for a general development plan (GDP) in 2010 and its subsequent amendment in After reviewing the record in light of the applicable law, we affirm. I. The Landowner acquired an interest in certain property located in Woolwich Township from its predecessor-in-interest Woodbury Adult, LLC (Woodbury Adult). Woodbury Adult had initiated and settled Mt. Laurel 1 litigation against Woolwich in a 1 S. Burlington Cnty. NAACP v. Twp. of Mt. Laurel, 67 N.J. 151 (1975). 2
3 comprehensive agreement that addressed proposed residential and non-residential development on the property in As part of the settlement, Woodbury Adult agreed to apply for a GDP. After entry of the settlement, the trial court entered a judgment of repose from further Mt. Laurel litigation in Pursuant to the settlement, in 2008, Woolwich amended its zoning ordinance specifically addressing, among other things, the development of this property. In 2010, the Landowner proposed a GDP encompassing several hundred acres along the Route 322 corridor in Woolwich Township to the Board, which granted its approval in a seventeen-page resolution on July 15, Essentially, the project consisted of three separate retail and commercial developments, each with its own time frame. The first phase, Woolwich Commons, consisted of more than 500,000 square feet and was scheduled to be completed within ten years. The second phase, called Woolwich Crossings, consisted of about 225,000 square feet and was scheduled to be completed within fifteen years. The final phase was called Main Street at Woolwich, which consisted of 650,000 square feet, and was scheduled to be completed within twenty years. The Landowner and Woolwich Township executed a Developer's Agreement for the project on June 25, 2011, which required the Landowner to obtain sewer and water for all phases. 3
4 On September 20, 2012, the Board considered the Landowner's application for an amended GDP (AGDP) and approved the plan on December 6, The Landowner's application proposed three changes: (1) the addition of forty-one acres to the GDP without a specific plan for the land at the time; (2) an increase in retail and commercial space of the Woolwich Commons parcel by about 60,000 square feet and additional outdoor sales space of about 15,000 square feet; and (3) a change in the phasing dates to begin on the date of approval of the AGDP rather than the GDP. After a hearing, the Board approved the requested changes. Subsequently, two residents of Woolwich, Frank Pagano 2 and Ammons, filed actions in lieu of prerogative writs to challenge the Board's approval. Ammons filed his complaint on January 17, 2013, pleading seven counts challenging certain Board action, including: the change of the phasing dates; the failure to provide sufficient water and sewer resources; the inclusion of additional land in the plan without a specific development plan; general violations of provisions of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL); 3 the grant of variances without sufficient information; the failure 2 The trial court consolidated the cases, but Pagano did not appeal from the grant of summary judgment. 3 N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to
5 to set forth findings of fact and conclusion of law; and inadequate notice. After the complaint was filed, the Landowner applied to the Board for approval of a second amended GDP (SAGDP). The SAGDP proposed to include some of the unallocated land added by the AGDP into the Woolwich Crossings portion of the project. On April 18, 2013, the Board voted to approve the SAGDP and finalized its action on June 20, Ammons did not amend his complaint to include a challenge to the SAGDP. On September 26, 2013, the Landowner filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment; shortly thereafter, the Board also filed a similar motion. After hearing oral argument, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered additional briefing. After the parties submitted their supplemental briefs, the trial judge granted summary judgment to defendants on April 24, 2014 and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints with prejudice. In its statement of reasons, the court found that the municipal ordinance authorizing the Board to approve GDPs was valid, and that plaintiffs' challenge to the ordinance was barred as untimely under Rule 4:69-6(a) as was any substantive challenge to the GDP. Concerning the AGDP, the court rejected the allegations that the AGDP did not adequately address sewer and water availability, finding that the Landowner did more than the 5
6 statute required. The court also found that the addition of fortyone acres in the AGDP without a specific plan for development was not prohibited by the ordinance or the MLUL. Additionally, the court rejected plaintiffs' argument over the changing of the phasing dates, noting that the twenty-year maximum period for GDPs did not run until "the developer receives final approval of the first section of the planned development." Finally, the court found that in approving the AGDP, the Board made the required general findings. This appeal followed. II. On appeal, Ammons raises several arguments for our consideration. First, he argues that the amendment to Woolwich's ordinances which permitted the development of GDPs on the specific property at issue did not properly grant the Board the authority to approve a GDP, thereby making the GDP and its amendments void. He also claims that since the GDP was void, any challenge to the GDP and its amendments was timely. He further contends that the GDP approval was deficient for not containing the necessary findings. He also maintains that the AGDP approval was not valid because the developer did not demonstrate the availability of water and sewer, and added additional acres without a specific proposal for their use. Finally, he contends that the Board did not have the authority to grant changes in the timing of the phases 6
7 of each development because it was bound by the twenty-year period of the initial GDP approval. We are unpersuaded by these arguments. We begin with a review of the well-established legal principles that guide our analysis. As a threshold matter, when reviewing a trial court's determination of the validity of an action taken by a land use board, we are bound by the same standard as the trial court. N.Y. SMSA, Ltd. P'ship v. Bd of Adjustment of Weehawken, 370 N.J. Super. 319, 331 (App. Div. 2004). Thus, we give substantial deference to findings of fact, Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Community Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 362 (2011), but review de novo those "interpretations of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts...." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). We have long recognized that "because of their peculiar knowledge of local conditions," municipal land use boards "must be allowed wide latitude in their delegated discretion." Jock v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, Twp. of Wall, 184 N.J. 562, 597 (2005); accord Booth v. Bd. of Adjustment of Rockaway Twp., 50 N.J. 302, 306 (1967). The MLUL is "a comprehensive statute that allows municipalities to adopt ordinances to regulate land development 'in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals 7
8 and general welfare' using uniform and efficient procedures." Rumson Estates, Inc. v. Mayor & Council of Fair Haven, 177 N.J. 338, 349 (2003) (citing N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2a). Zoning ordinances enacted pursuant to these principles, which are enumerated in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2, are entitled to a presumption of validity. Riggs v. Twp. of Long Beach, 109 N.J. 601, (1988). A party challenging the zoning ordinance has the burden of overcoming the presumption. N.J. Shore Builders Ass'n v. Twp. of Jackson, 401 N.J. Super. 152, 161 (App. Div. 2008) (citing Ward v. Twp. of Montgomery, 28 N.J. 529, 539 (1959)). Like other laws enacted by local governments, zoning laws are liberally construed in the municipality's favor. Rumson Estates, supra, 177 N.J. at 351. The MLUL defines a GDP as "a comprehensive plan for the development of a planned development...." 4 N.J.S.A. 40:55D- 4. "The planned development shall be developed in accordance with the [GDP] approved by the planning board notwithstanding any provisions of [the MLUL]." N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.1(a). N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.1(b) provides that "the term of the effect of the [GDP] approval... shall not exceed 20 years from the date upon which the developer receives final approval of the first section of the planned development...." Consequently, "[t]he developer is 4 A "planned development" is defined broadly by reference to various types of developments, each of which is defined in the MLUL. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-6. 8
9 protected from zoning changes for a period to be set by the planning board, not to exceed twenty years." Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries, Inc. v. City of Millville Planning Bd., 395 N.J. Super. 434, 446 (App. Div. 2007) (emphasis added). N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.6(a) provides that "once a general development plan has been approved by the planning board, it may be amended or revised only upon application by the developer approved by the planning board." These provisions were part of comprehensive legislation adopted in 1987, see L. 1987, c. 129, that also permitted municipalities to enact ordinances containing discretionary provisions specific to planned developments. N.J.S.A. 40:55D- 39(c). Such ordinances may confer upon the planning board the authority "to grant [GDP] approval to provide the increased flexibility desirable to promote mutual agreement between the applicant and the planning board on the basic scheme of a planned development...." N.J.S.A. 40:55D-39(c)(1); Citizens United, supra, 395 N.J. Super. at 447; see also Cox & Koenig, N.J. Zoning and Land Use Administration, (2015). In addressing these amendments to the MLUL, we have said that "the entire GDP process is intended to be general in nature and to provide the increased flexibility desirable to promote mutual agreement between a developer and planning board regarding the basic scheme of a 9
10 planned development[.]" Citizens United, supra, 395 N.J. Super. at 448. III. Ammons first contends that the trial court erred in holding that his appeal concerning the original GDP was untimely. This action was brought pursuant to Rule 4:69, which governs actions in lieu of prerogative writs. "No action in lieu of prerogative writs shall be commenced later than 45 days after the accrual of the right to the review, hearing or relief claimed, except as provided by paragraph (b) of this rule." R. 4:69-6(a). Paragraph (b) provides that in the case of a planning board or board of adjustment that approves an application, any challenge must be filed before "45 days from the publication of a notice once in the official newspaper of the municipality or a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality...." R. 4:69-6(b)(3). There is no dispute that Ammons' complaint was only filed within fortyfive days of the AGDP, not the GDP. The forty-five day time period can be enlarged "where it is manifest that the interest of justice so requires." R. 4:69-6(c). Ammons does not request that the time limit be enlarged in the interest of justice. Rather, Ammons argues that, even though he did not challenge the GDP in 2010, he was entitled to challenge the GDP in 2013 because the Board did not have the authority to 10
11 approve GDPs and thus the GDP approval was void from the beginning. He contends that since his argument is jurisdictional, the time limit in Rule 4:69-6 does not apply. 5 Because we find that the Board had the authority to approve GDPs, we need not delve into the complex issue of whether the Board's action was void or voidable. The record shows that in 2008 the municipality developed an ordinance entitled "Woolwich Regional Center and Auburn Road Village Regulations and Design Standards" and amended the zoning ordinance as required by the MLUL. This almost two-hundred page ordinance, known as Part 2 of the zoning ordinance, controlled two specified areas, including the area "along the Route 322 corridor," which is where the GDP at issue was located. Although included in the zoning ordinance, Part 2 stated that for the areas covered by the ordinance it "supersede[d] any of the other provisions of the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance as they apply to the Township as a whole." Woolwich, 5 While actions beyond the jurisdiction of a municipality can be challenged in certain instances even if the challenge was not timely made, "'there is a distinction between an act utterly beyond the jurisdiction of a municipal corporation and the irregular exercise of a basic power under the legislative grant in matters not in themselves jurisdictional.'" Heyert v. Taddese, 431 N.J. Super. 388, 429 (App. Div. 2013). An action that is challenged as an irregular exercise of a power that was granted by the legislature will not be permitted to move forward if not timely raised. See ibid. 11
12 N.J., Ordinance No (hereinafter "Woolwich Ordinance") (October 27, 2008). It also stated that "in the event of any inconsistencies or contradictions, this Part 2 shall be deemed as controlling over those lands located in the two [c]enters." Ibid. The ordinance articulated numerous goals and purposes but also stated that it was an "enabling ordinance." Woolwich Ordinance The ordinance clearly authorized the Board to consider GDPs according to the statutory requirements for such plans in the MLUL. In the event any single property owner or consortium of property owners owns properties consisting of 15 acres or more, he/she or it may apply to the Joint Land Use Board for General Development Plan (GDP) approval for its portions of either center and shall be subject to the provision of N.J.S.A. 40:55D- 45 et seq. regarding GDP review and approvals. [Woolwich Ordinance, D.] Part 2 also empowers the Board to review and approve the phasing schedule, Woolwich Ordinance , approve deviations from Part 2 standards, Woolwich Ordinance , and approve "variances, waivers and/or deviations from the provisions of... Part 2[.]" Woolwich Ordinance Moreover, the Board had the power to review applications for GDPs for minor subdivisions, Woolwich, N.J., Ordinance No (hereinafter "JLUB Ordinance") (October 1, 2007), major subdivisions, 12
13 JLUB Ordinance 23-25, 23-26, and site plan approval. JLUB Ordinance We reject Ammons' claim that this substantial and specific ordinance does not authorize the Board to review and approve GDPs because Part 2 is in the zoning ordinance and not in the JLUB ordinance that establishes the powers and duties of the Board. The MLUL permits a municipality to authorize the planning board to grant GDP approval "to promote the increased flexibility desirable to promote mutual agreement between the applicant and the planning board on the basic scheme of a planned development... " N.J.S.A. 40:55D-39(c)(1). The statute does not set forth any specific language that the municipality must use or specify where in its ordinances the authorization must be placed. It is necessary to look at all land use ordinances in the municipality to understand its intent in passing Part 2. "[A] legislative provision should not be read in isolation or in a way which sacrifices what appears to be the scheme of the statute as a whole without undue emphasis on any particular word or phrase and, if possible, in a manner which harmonizes all its parts so as to do justice to its overall meaning." [Chasin v. Montclair State Univ., 159 N.J. 418, 427 (1999) (quoting Zimmerman v. Municipal Clerk of Twp. of Berkeley, 201 N.J. Super. 363, 368 (App. Div. 1985)). See also In re Passaic Cnty. Utils. Auth., 164 N.J. 271, 300 (2000).] 13
14 The intent and purpose of Part 2 plainly included submission of GDPs to the Board for its consideration. Thus, we reject Ammons' claim that the Board did not have the authority to consider the original GDP or its amendments. Consequently, we agree with the trial judge that the filing of the prerogative writs action concerning the 2010 GDP was untimely. IV. Next, Ammons argues that the AGDP was "invalid" due to several deficits. Ammons contends that the AGDP failed to make required findings for an approval of a GDP. Initially, we note that Ammons' challenge to the Board's factual findings rests on facts that did not change from the GDP to the AGDP. Thus, this challenge is barred because Ammons failed to challenge the alleged inadequacy in the GDP at the time of its approval. See Cortesini v. Hamilton Twp. Planning Bd., 417 N.J. Super. 210, 216 (App. Div. 2010). Furthermore, our review of the GDP shows the resolution approving the AGDP contains adequate fact-finding. An application for a GDP is a precursor to a subdivision or a site plan application. Citizens United, supra, 395 N.J. Super. at 450. It is an optional procedure that permits a planning board and a developer to agree on an overall scheme for development. Ibid. 14
15 When reviewing GDP applications, boards are to consider them "in a general matter, but with a view to determining whether, so considered, those elements would establish that the proposed development" satisfies the requirements of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45. See Citizen's United, supra, 395 N.J. Super. at 451 (discussing the N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45(d) requirement that a planned development not have an unreasonable adverse impact on the area of the project). Concerning information required by the Board at the GDP phase, "a more general type of information might be sufficient to establish no unreasonably adverse impact... whereas, at a later stage, namely subdivision or site plan review, detailed engineering data will be required." Id. at 452. As the trial court found, the Board's general findings concerning the GDP were more than enough to address the general findings required at this stage of the application process. Ammons specifically claims that the AGDP's inclusion of forty-one acres without a plan was without authority. We cannot agree. Once a GDP has been approved, the developer may amend the plan, but must apply to the planning board and receive its approval to do so. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.6(a). We reject Ammons' contention, which is without any statutory support, that at the GDP stage of the process, an applicant is required to submit a specific plan for the entire site. Such an obligation is inconsistent with the 15
16 structure and purpose of the statute, which requires boards to consider applications "in a general manner." See Citizen's United, supra, 395 N.J. Super. at 451. Ammons further contends that the MLUL does not authorize a Board to change the phasing dates on an approved GDP. A planning board has discretion to determine how long its approval of a GDP will have legal effect. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.1(b). However, this discretion is not unfettered, as there is an absolute limit of twenty "years from the date upon which the developer receives final approval of the first section of the planned development...." N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.1(b). The MLUL defines "final approval" as the official action of the planning board taken on a preliminarily approved major subdivision or site plan, after all conditions, engineering plans and other requirements have been completed or fulfilled and the required improvements have been installed or guarantees properly posted for their completion, or approval conditioned upon the posting of such guarantees. [N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4.] Contrary to Ammons' argument, the language is clear concerning when the twenty years begins to run. A court's function is not "to rewrite a plainly-written enactment of the Legislature or presume that the Legislature intended something other than that expressed by way of the plain language." Borough of Glassboro v. 16
17 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 108, 197 N.J. 1, 11 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). At the time the Board restarted the time allotments for the GDP phases, the statutory clock had not yet begun to run as none of the phases had reached a point of "final approval[.]" N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.1(b). Moreover, a developer may seek to modify the proposed timing schedule by requesting permission from the planning board. N.J.S.A. 40:55D We conclude that the Board granted an extension of the planning schedule in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-45.4 and that extension had no effect on the statutory twenty-year period under N.J.S.A. 40: (b). We have considered Ammons additional arguments and find them to be without sufficient merit for further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed. 17
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ELLEN HEINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PATERSON, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. JAI SAI RAM, LLC, a limited liability company of the State of New Jersey, and
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. THE PITNEY BOWES BANK, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationArgued September 11, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Accurso and O'Connor.
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 only
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. CAMPUS ASSOCIATES L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION v.
More informationBefore Judges Espinosa, Suter and Guadagno. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L
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
More informationArgued September 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Yannotti, Carroll, and Mawla.
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
More informationNEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON IN THE MATTER OF ) AFFORDABLE HOUSING WARREN TOWNSHIP ) DOCKET NO
NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON IN THE MATTER OF ) AFFORDABLE HOUSING WARREN TOWNSHIP ) DOCKET NO. 96-804 OPINION On August 30, 1996, Warren Township filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Council on Affordable
More informationDefendants-Respondents. - Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.
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
More informationArgued February 7, Decided. Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Suter.
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
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationTHIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the Agreement ), dated as of, 2015 (the "Effective Date"), is entered into by and between the Petitioner TOWNSHIP OF
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WOODBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, Petitioner. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION:MIDDLESEX COUNTY DOCKET NO.:
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. IN RE: PETITION FOR REFERENDUM TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2010-27 OF THE CITY OF MARGATE
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. MARK'S ADVANCED TOWING, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CITY OF BAYONNE and ROBERT
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
WILLIAM H. JOHNSON, JR., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, DOWNE TOWNSHIP COMBINED PLANNING/ZONING BOARD and KATHRYN L. WEISENBURG, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Defendants-Respondents.
More informationBefore Judges Leone and Vernoia. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Municipal Appeal No
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 only
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. MAIN STREET AT WOOLWICH, LLC, WOOLWICH COMMONS, LLC, and WOOLWICH CROSSINGS,
More informationArgued February 26, 2018 Decided. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L
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
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ADAM SZYFMAN and GRAHAM FEIL, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, BOROUGH OF GLASSBORO,
More informationArgued October 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Rothstadt and Gooden Brown.
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
More informationATTORNEYS AT LAW. June 10, 2007
ERIC M I BERNSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C, TWO NORTH ROAD P,O, 80X 4922 WARREN, NEW JERSEY 07059 ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 10, 2007 (732) 805-3360 FACSIMILE 1732) 805-3346 www.embalaw.com Honorable Victor Ashrafi
More informationSubmitted October 25, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Messano, Espinosa and Guadagno.
LYNX ASSET SERVICES, L.L.C., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, MICHELE MINUNNO, MR. MINUNNO, husband of MICHELE MINUNNO; STEVEN MINUNNO; MRS. STEVEN MINUNNO, wife of STEVEN MINUNNO; and Defendants-Appellants, PREMIER
More informationArgued January 18, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Espinosa, Suter, and Guadagno.
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
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2127-14T4 CLAUDIA CASSER, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. THE GLENS AT POMPTON PLAINS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationBefore Judges Currier and Geiger.
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
More informationNEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, INC., ; Plaintiffs, Civil Action OPINION
NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, INC., ; et a l.,...- Plaintiffs, V. HOLMDEL TOWNSHIP, et al., Defendants. Civil Action OPINION FRANK DIMISA and RONALD AQUAVIVA,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
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
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STANLEY E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOROUGH OF CLAYTON, APPROVED
More informationArgued May 31, 2017 Decided August 11, Before Judges Vernoia and Moynihan (Judge Vernoia concurring).
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
More informationBefore Judges Nugent and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L
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
More informationArgued September 26, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Reisner, Hoffman and Mayer.
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
More informationSubmitted May 17, 2017 Decided June 21, Before Judges Carroll and Farrington.
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
More informationArgued February 27, Decided. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket No. L
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
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GREEN OAK TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION February 4, 2003 9:00 a.m. v No. 231704 Livingston Circuit Court GREEN OAK M.H.C. and KENNETH B. LC No. 00-017990-CZ
More informationSYLLABUS. Northgate Condominium Association, Inc. v. Borough of Hillsdale Planning Board (A-5-11) (067794)
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. BRIAN RABB, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CHILDREN'S PLACE RETAIL STORES, INC., d/b/a
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS. v No Macomb Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RALPH DALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 27, 2007 v No. 265363 Macomb Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD LC No. 2004-005355-CZ and ZONING BOARD
More informationOpinion NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS. Adam Ambielli and Lisa Ambielli, et al.
Opinion NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS Adam Ambielli and Lisa Ambielli, et al. v. Township of Lebanon, Township of Lebanon Planning Board, and GenPsych, P.C. Decided:
More informationBefore Judges Fasciale and Gooden Brown.
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
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, LLC, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4630-14T1 v. Plaintiff-Appellant/
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PATRICIA J. MCCLAIN, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. v. Appellant, BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LEARNING
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SHELBY OAKS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 5, 2004 v No. 241135 Macomb Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY and LC No. 99-002191-AV CHARTER TOWNSHIP
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY Joanne F. Alper, Judge. This appeal arises from a petition for certiorari
Present: All the Justices MANUEL E. GOYONAGA, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 070229 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. February 29, 2008 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE CITY OF FALLS CHURCH FROM THE CIRCUIT
More informationSubmitted June 1, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez, Manahan and Lisa.
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
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. Submitted April 19, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Fisher, Espinosa, and Currier.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SOLOMON Z. BALK, DECEASED.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A T3 A T3 ENZO MARINELLI, YOLA MARINELLI, JOHN JAMES and GENA JAMES,
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
More informationThe present matter arises as the result of a motion filed. by Alexander's Department Stores of New Jersey, Inc. and Sakraf
COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. COAH IN RE BOROUGH OF PARAMUS/ ) Civil Action REQUEST TO VACATE SUBSTANTIVE ) OPINION CERTIFICATION ) The present matter arises as the result of a motion filed
More informationRECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
RECORD IMPOUNDED 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
More informationLegal & Legislative Update By Michael J. Gross, Esq. & Steven M. Dalton, Esq.
Voice of the Central Jersey Shore Building Industry July/August 2007 Legal & Legislative Update By Michael J. Gross, Esq. & Steven M. Dalton, Esq. COURT INVALIDATES JACKSON OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE New Jersey
More informationArgued February 28, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Fuentes, Manahan, and Suter.
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
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jeffrey Maund and Eric Pagac, : Appellants : : v. : No. 206 C.D. 2015 : Argued: April 12, 2016 Zoning Hearing Board of : California Borough : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ALLYN C. SEEL, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, LORENZO LANGFORD, MAYOR, and THE CITY
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. GS PARTNERS, L.L.C., a limited liability company of New Jersey, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationSubmitted December 21, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Simonelli and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
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
More informationCHAPTER 4 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS SECTION 4.1 FILING AND COMPLETENESS REVIEW; INFORMAL REVIEWS
CHAPTER 4 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS SECTION 4.1 FILING AND COMPLETENESS REVIEW; INFORMAL REVIEWS A. Filing, Referral, Distribution and Scheduling. Applicants may file applications
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. HARVEY S. ROSEFF, JOANN SMITH, EUGENIA C. MORAN, MERWYN LEE and NELSON A. DROBNESS,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 18, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 18, 2006 Session WILLIAM DORNING, SHERIFF OF LAWRENCE COUNTY v. AMETRA BAILEY, COUNTY MAYOR OF LAWRENCE COUNTY, TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WHITMORE LAKE 23/LLC, 1 ZAKHOUR I. YOUSSEF, ANDOULLA YOUSSEF, MUAIAD SHIHADEH, and AIDA SHIHADEH, UNPUBLISHED April 28, 2011 and Plaintiffs-Appellants, ELIE R. KHOURY
More informationBefore Judges Sumners and Moynihan. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L
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
More informationv No Macomb Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S TRAIL SIDE LLC and ROBERT V. ROGERS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED July 6, 2017 v No. 331747 Macomb Circuit Court VILLAGE OF ROMEO, LC No.
More informationv No Saginaw Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S JASON ANDRICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 5, 2018 v No. 337711 Saginaw Circuit Court DELTA COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, LC No. 16-031550-CZ
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION OF
More informationArgued March 23, 2017 Decided May 15, Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple.
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
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. CAROLYNE MORGAN, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, CESAR PARRA, Individually, KATIE
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MERRIAM FARM, INC. TOWN OF SURRY. Argued: June 14, 2012 Opinion Issued: July 18, 2012
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WAR-AG FARMS, L.L.C., DALE WARNER, and DEE ANN BOCK, UNPUBLISHED October 7, 2008 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 270242 Lenawee Circuit Court FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, FRANKLIN
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STERLING LAUREL REALTY, LLC, individually and derivatively on behalf of LAUREL
More informationCOUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING COAH DOCKET NO IN THE MATTER OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST GREENWICH OPINION
IN THE MATTER OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST GREENWICH COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING COAH DOCKET NO. 98-1003 OPINION This motion arises out of a court order dated April 30, 1998 issued by the Honorable Robert
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 10/23/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE SAVE LAFAYETTE TREES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LAFAYETTE,
More informationSPOTTY BEHAVIOR OR GOOD PRECEDENT: THE REBIRTH OF THE INVERSE SPOT ZONING DOCTRINE IN RIYA FINNEGAN, LLC V. TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK
WYRWASWYRWAS_FORMATTED.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) SPOTTY BEHAVIOR OR GOOD PRECEDENT: THE REBIRTH OF THE INVERSE SPOT ZONING DOCTRINE IN RIYA FINNEGAN, LLC V. TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK Jaclyn Wyrwas
More informationBY-LAWS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD. Table of Contents
BY-LAWS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD Table of Contents ARTICLE I ANNUAL REORGANIZATION MEETING; SELECTION OF OFFICERS; ORDER OF VOTING... 2 ARTICLE II DUTIES OF
More informationV. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION TOWNSHIP OF CLARK, UNION COUNTY, SYNOPSIS
211-01 ROBERT NADASKY, PATRICIA : WALDVOGEL AND JAMES DOUGHERTY, PETITIONERS, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION TOWNSHIP OF CLARK, UNION COUNTY, RESPONDENT. : : SYNOPSIS
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION EILEEN BROWN and CHRISTOPHER BROWN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWNSHIP OF PARSIPPANY-TROY
More informationBefore Judges O'Connor and Whipple.
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
More informationArgued January 24, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Leone and Vernoia.
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
More informationArgued September 20, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Fisher, Ostrer and Leone.
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
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LJS PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2004 RONALD W. SABO, Trustee of the BERNARD C. NORKO TRUST, WILLIAM J. BISHOP, Plaintiffs, v No. 248311
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A Court of Appeals McKeig, J.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A17-1210 Court of Appeals McKeig, J. In re the Matter of the Annexation of Certain Real Property to the City of Proctor Filed: March 27, 2019 from Midway Township Office
More informationLegal & Legislative Update By Michael J. Gross, Esq. & Steven M. Dalton, Esq.
Voice of the Central Jersey Shore Building Industry May/June 2006 C-1 WATER BUFFER UPHELD In re Matter of Stormwater Rules Legal & Legislative Update By Michael J. Gross, Esq. & Steven M. Dalton, Esq.
More informationE&R Enterprise LLC v. City of Rehoboth Beach
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-1-2016 E&R Enterprise LLC v. City of Rehoboth Beach Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationDivision Eight - Procedures CONTENTS
Division Eight - Procedures CONTENTS Page Procedures: Title and Contents... 800-1 Variances... 804-1 Vacations and Abandonments of Easements or Streets... 806-1 Administrative Permits... 808-1 Special
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. LIBERTARIANS FOR TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT, a NJ Nonprofit Corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationTOWNSHIP OF BERKELEY HEIGHTS, UNION COUNTY. ORDINANCE No.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT: This Ordinance establishes terms and conditions for the recording of public meetings of the Township of Berkeley Heights by members of the public. TOWNSHIP OF BERKELEY HEIGHTS, UNION
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. CLUB 35, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE, APPROVED FOR
More informationArgued May 15, 2018 Decided June 5, Before Judges Yannotti and Carroll.
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
More informationFINAL DECISION. April 26, 2016 Government Records Council Meeting
FINAL DECISION April 26, 2016 Government Records Council Meeting Darlene Esposito Complainant v. NJ Department of Law and Public Safety, Division on Civil Rights Custodian of Record Complaint No. 2015-143
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NINE A, LLC TOWN OF CHESTERFIELD. Argued: April 30, 2008 Opinion Issued: June 3, 2008
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationArgued October 16, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Messano and Vernoia.
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
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. COLLENE WRONKO, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, NEW JERSEY SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION ENZIO COLUMBRO, KAREN A. COLUMBRO, and LARRY MARINO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. v. Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationIN RE SUBSTANTIVE CERTIFICATION ) COAH DOCKET NO OF WANAQUE BOROUGH, PASSAIC ) COUNTY, MOTION FOR SCARCE ) OPINION RESOURCE RESTRAINTS )
IN RE SUBSTANTIVE CERTIFICATION ) COAH DOCKET NO. 05-1715 OF WANAQUE BOROUGH, PASSAIC ) COUNTY, MOTION FOR SCARCE ) OPINION RESOURCE RESTRAINTS ) This matter comes before the Council on Affordable Housing
More informationTHE CONTINUED VITALITY OF THE TIME OF DECISION RULE IN NEW JERSEY LAND USE LAW. By: Trishka Waterbury, Esq.
THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF THE TIME OF DECISION RULE IN NEW JERSEY LAND USE LAW By: Trishka Waterbury, Esq. The time of decision rule is a rule of retroactivity that stands for the proposition that whatever
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WOLTERS REALTY, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 3, 2004 v No. 247228 Allegan Circuit Court SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP, SAUGATUCK LC No. 00-028157-CZ PLANNING COMMISSION,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GERALD MASON and KAREN MASON, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross- Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION February 26, 2009 9:05 a.m. v No. 282714 Menominee Circuit Court CITY OF MENOMINEE,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: January 11, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, SAMUEL HEKEMIAN, PETER HEKEMIAN, JEFFREY
More informationFINAL DECISION. July 28, 2015 Government Records Council Meeting
FINAL DECISION July 28, 2015 Government Records Council Meeting Robert A. Verry Complainant v. Franklin Fire District No. 1 (Somerset) Custodian of Record Complaint No. 2014-387 At the July 28, 2015 public
More informationAppendix A: Draft Billboard Ordinance
Appendix A: Draft Billboard Ordinance THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 11-18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1860-18,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAL-MAR ROYAL VILLAGE, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION February 25, 2014 9:05 a.m. v No. 308659 Macomb Circuit Court MACOMB COUNTY TREASURER, LC No. 2011-004061-AW
More information