Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Evesham Township Zoning Board of Adjustment v. Evesham Township Council

Decided: June 11, 1981.


On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 176 N.J. Super. 503 (1980).

For reversal and remandment -- Chief Justice Wilentz and Justices Sullivan, Pashman, Clifford, Schreiber, Handler and Pollock. For affirmance -- none. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Sullivan, J.


This appeal in a zoning case involves the construction of certain provisions of the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq. The basic issue presented is the scope of review to be applied by a municipal governing body under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-17 when an appeal is taken to that body from the decision of a municipal board of adjustment denying an application for a use variance.

Appellants, Samuel, Edith and William Ruggierio, the contract purchasers of a house and adjacent lot located in a residential zone in Evesham Township, filed an application with the Evesham Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) for a use variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d) ("special reasons") to renovate and use the property for a law and professional office building. Following extensive hearings, the application was denied essentially on the ground that the proposed use would be inconsistent with and detrimental to the existing zoning scheme.

Appellants appealed the Board's action to the municipal governing body, the Evesham Township Council (Council), which, after de novo review of the record, reached a contrary decision. The Council found that special reasons had been shown, that the proposed use would not adversely affect the surrounding residential uses, and that the immediate neighborhood would benefit and would not be substantially depreciated or impaired by the proposed professional use. The Council also noted that neither the neighboring property owners nor the general public objected in any manner to the application. The Council, therefore, reversed the Board's decision and approved the variance application.

The Board then filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs charging that the Council's action was arbitrary, capricious and a usurpation of the authority entrusted to the Board by the Municipal Land Use Law. Motions to dismiss were filed raising the issue of the Board's standing to maintain the action. Prior to a ruling on the motions, the Board decided to withdraw the action and a stipulation of dismissal was executed by the parties. Shortly before the dismissal was filed, however, Wilbert D. Abele, Vice-Chairman of the Board, filed a motion to intervene individually as a party plaintiff asserting his status as a taxpayer and resident of the municipality. The trial court, over defendants' objection, granted the motion and allowed Abele to prosecute the suit in place of the Board.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court, in an opinion reported at 169 N.J. Super. 460 (Law Div.1979), ruled that the Council had no authority to make a de novo review of the Board's decision. Id. at 471-472. It noted that the Municipal Land Use Law vested power in boards of adjustment to grant or deny applications for variances from zoning provisions and that such matters came before the governing body only if an appeal was taken from the board's action. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-17(a). The court construed the statute as not vesting the governing body on such an appeal with broad reviewing authority over the board of adjustment's decision. Rather, it held that

the statutory grant of review to a governing body was limited to a consideration of whether the board's action was so arbitrary and capricious as to amount to an abuse of discretion. Id.

Applying this standard, the trial court determined that the finding of the Board in the instant case was amply supported by the record and was by no means arbitrary. Id. at 474. It therefore reversed the Council's decision and reinstated the Board's denial of the variance application. Appeals were filed by the Council and the Ruggierios with the Appellate Division which affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the trial judge. 176 N.J. Super. 503 (1980). This Court granted certification on the petition of the Ruggierios. 86 N.J. 295 (1980).

Initially, appellants contend that the trial court should not have allowed Wilbert D. Abele to intervene as a party plaintiff some eight months after the Board's suit had been filed, and after the execution of a stipulation of dismissal of the action by all of the then parties to the suit. We find no error. R. 4:33-2 on Permissive Intervention vests considerable discretion in the trial court. No legal prejudice has been shown. Under the circumstances presented and in view of the important public issue involved, we conclude that the order allowing Abele's intervention was a proper exercise of the court's authority.

The basic, and important, issue in this appeal is the scope of review question. Under the old Municipal Planning Act, N.J.S.A. 40:55-1.1 et seq., a board of adjustment had the power to deny an application for a "special reasons" use variance, which denial was final and was directly reviewable by an action in lieu of prerogative writs. Rogoff v. Tufariello, 106 N.J. Super. 303, 308-309 (App.Div.1969), certif. den. 54 N.J. 583 (1969). However, the board itself could not actually grant a use variance but could only recommend the grant of such variance to the governing body which had the power to approve or disapprove such ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.