![]() 40:49-2, because the municipal clerk did not publish the notice, the notice was deficient, and it was published in newspapers other than those designated by the Borough.Īfter considering oral argument, the judge observed that the purpose of any "notice provision" was "o alert individuals who may very well be affected by governmental action that is about to take place in proximity to property that they live upon or that they own." He further noted that, in this case, the published notice of the public meeting included a copy of the proposed ordinance in its entirety. Additionally, plaintiffs contended that the ordinance was enacted in violation of N.J.S.A. They also argued the notices were deficient. 40:55D-62.1, which requires that public notice of certain amendments to a zoning ordinance must be given by the municipal clerk, the notices in this case were provided by counsel for the HCHA. In particular, plaintiffs contended that, in violation of N.J.S.A. ![]() Before the Law Division, however, plaintiffs' challenge rested solely upon alleged violations of the MLUL and N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21, and the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. Plaintiffs filed a timely complaint in lieu of prerogative writs alleging the Borough's actions failed to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), N.J.S.A. On May 28, 2009, a notice of its approval was published in a local newspaper, with the municipal clerk's name and title appearing at the bottom of the notice.3 The mayor and council approved the ordinance. The municipal clerk's name and title appeared at the end of the legal notice. Although the ordinance itself only identified the affected properties by lot and block number, the notice set forth in full detail the permitted uses in the proposed SCR zone, as well as the various land use requirements and restrictions. That notice included the ordinance in its entirety. The Borough caused notice of the May 20 meeting to be published in a local newspaper, although it is not entirely clear from the record who submitted the legal notice to the paper. by an owner by order of Mayor and Council of North Haledon." The HCHA's name appeared at the bottom of the notice as "Owner." Counsel for the HCHA executed affidavits of service upon all affected property owners. The notice described the involved properties by lot and block numbers, and provided that notice was being "sent. The Board adopted the proposed change, and, thereafter, the ordinance was scheduled for a hearing before the Borough's mayor and council on May 20, 2009.Ĭounsel for the HCHA again prepared notice of the May 20 meeting and served same on plaintiffs and other affected property owners. ![]() Plaintiffs received individual notice of the hearing based upon their property's proximity to the proposed subject zoning change. ![]() The public notice of the meeting was promulgated and published by counsel for the HCHA. The ordinance was referred by the Borough to its Planning Board (the Board), which conducted a hearing on April 23, 2009. Plaintiffs' property is within 200 feet of the proposed zoning change, and some of the property subject to the change was owned by the Holland Christian Home Association (HCHA).2Īs stated in the ordinance, the purpose of the zoning change was "to meet the diverse housing and health care needs of an aging population while allowing zoning flexibility to accommodate the ever changing residential and medical needs for this specific population." It is apparently undisputed that the Borough's most recent comprehensive master plan, adopted in May 2004, recognized the need for senior housing, and its prior master plan re-examination report, in 1996, recognized HCHA's property was a "longstanding non-conforming use should be rezoned" to conform. The ordinance sought to amend the Borough's existing zoning plan by creating a new zoning district, the "Senior Citizen Residential (SCR) District," comprised of four lots within Block 65 on the municipal tax map. 12-2009 (the ordinance), by the Borough of North Haledon (the Borough).1 The facts are undisputed. Carbone, appeal from the Law Division's order of February 23, 2012, dismissing the first count of their complaint in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the passage of ordinance No. ![]() Carbone, attorney for appellants.ĭe Marco & De Marco, attorneys for respondent (Michael P. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |