Public benefits of land use don’t outweigh local zoning, New Jersey Supreme Court says

Types : In the News

In a unanimous ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court revised the framework for localities considering variance requests, saying they must prioritize local land use compliance before weighing a project’s public benefits.

The July 13 ruling, hailed by the state’s municipal league as a major win for local authority, states that local zoning authorities “should determine whether the applicant has made a showing that the variance or other relief sought will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinance” and should deny the variance “if the applicant has not made such a showing.”

The ruling stems from a dispute after the Montville Township zoning board denied a developer’s application for a use variance to construct a 165-unit senior living facility because it conflicted with local land use rules despite being recognized as “inherently beneficial” under the state’s Municipal Land Use Law. The court in its ruling expressed no opinion on the Montville case itself.

The ruling updates a state framework established in 1992 to align with a 1997 statutory amendment to the state’s Municipal Land Use Law, which shifted the initial burden to applicants seeking variances to show that their requests are not inconsistent with the intent of zoning plans or ordinances, according to New Jersey law firm Montgomery McCracken. It is the “most significant refinement” of the framework in more than three decades, the law firm stated in a blog post.

Under the ruling, master plans “take on increased significance,” Montgomery McCracken wrote. As a result, municipalities “should review their master plans and development regulations to ensure they adequately address ‘inherently beneficial’ uses and include detailed findings supporting future variance decisions,” the law firm said.