Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Wickatunk Village, Inc. v. Tp. of Marlboro
Citations: 288 A.2d 308; 118 N.J. Super. 445
Court: New Jersey Superior Court; February 29, 1972; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
Wickatunk Village, Inc. challenges the denial of a variance for a tertiary sewerage treatment plant in a residential zone, as recommended by the board of adjustment. Marlboro Township seeks an injunction to prevent the plant's operation and relocate it. Wickatunk owns 42.5 acres in an R-2 residential zone, where it operates a mobile home park on 15 acres as a nonconforming use. The sewerage plant, costing approximately $60,000, was constructed before obtaining necessary permits, replacing malfunctioning septic tanks that polluted Bailey's Brook. Despite municipal officials' awareness and subsequent approvals from health authorities, the governing body did not act on the board's recommendation for the variance, resulting in a statutory denial under N.J.S.A. 40:55-39.1. Wickatunk argues that this denial should not have the usual presumption of validity, asserting the board's recommendation should be upheld unless proven arbitrary or unreasonable. Wickatunk seeks court intervention to compel approval of the variance application. No judicial interpretation exists for N.J.S.A. 40:55-39.1 regarding the court's review scope of a denial under this statute. Wickatunk's position overlooks that the board of adjustment can only recommend variances under N.J.S.A. 40:55-39(d), with no review until the governing body acts. The governing body's actions are presumed valid, and inaction is treated as a denial, thus also presumed valid. The court's review in cases of statutory denial aligns with its review of any governing body denial of a variance. The focus is on the governing body's denial's reasonableness, not the board's recommendation. The township contends that the board's record lacks 'special reasons' for the variance, which N.J.S.A. 40:55-39(d) requires to be granted alongside findings that it won't harm public good or the zoning plan. 'Special reasons' can be interpreted broadly, linked to zoning objectives like reducing congestion, ensuring safety, and promoting welfare. No rigid definition of 'special reasons' exists, but local bodies can't exercise unlimited discretion; adequate 'special reasons' must align with zoning goals. The court evaluates these reasons collectively rather than in isolation, and the plaintiff asserts that a sewerage plant is essential for the mobile homes, invoking the 'general welfare' standard typically associated with institutional uses. Bonsall v. Mendham Tp. addresses the criteria for granting variances in land use, emphasizing that certain uses are inherently beneficial to the public good, including educational and health-related facilities. The case specifically examines Wickatunk's proposal for a tertiary sewage treatment plant, which has been approved by relevant state and municipal authorities, and replaces a septic system that was polluting a stream. The plant is designed to significantly improve environmental conditions by treating sewage more effectively. Testimony from Marlboro's Division of Health indicated that the plant operates satisfactorily and would better serve the mobile home park. The evidence presented supports the conclusion that the proposed use would not negatively impact public welfare or contradict local zoning plans. Consequently, the prior denial of the variance was deemed arbitrary and unreasonable, leading to a judgment that requires the governing body to grant the variance, while also dismissing the related Chancery Division action.