On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-4146-07.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Reisner, Yannotti and Chambers.
Plaintiff Christopher John Zeman appeals from an order entered by the Law Division on November 12, 2008, affirming the grant by defendant Township of River Vale Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) of an application by defendant Parklane Construction, L.L.C. (Parklane) for certain variances. We affirm.
The following facts are pertinent to our decision. Parklane is the owner of certain premises on Cleveland Avenue in the Township. Plaintiff owns property to the rear of the Parklane property. In February 2007, Parklane applied to the Board for several variances required for the construction of a new single-family house on its property. The variances were for east and west side-yard setbacks (10.1 feet, where 15 feet is required), aggregate side-yard setback (20.2 feet, where 40 feet in required), lot area (11,570 square feet where 18,000 feet is required), and lot width (75 feet where 120 feet is required). The new structure would replace an existing single-family residence on the site that had fallen into disrepair.
The Board considered the matter at a meeting on March 15, 2007. Parklane presented testimony from Gary Vander Veer (Vander Veer), a licensed engineer, and Kurt Seickel (Seickel), who is one of Parklane's members. Vander Veer said that the proposed dwelling would be a four-bedroom house with three bathrooms. He also said that the square footage of the property is similar to that in other lots in the neighborhood. In his testimony, Seickel described the proposed structure as being of a "farmhouse style." As a result of concerns raised at the hearing, Parklane submitted revised plans to the Board.
The Board considered the revised application at its meeting on April 19, 2007. Vander Veer testified that the individual side-yard setbacks would no longer be required because the modified structure would have fifteen-foot side-yard setbacks. Vander Veer noted, however, that the combined thirty-yard setbacks were less than the forty feet required by the zoning ordinance. Seickel testified that the modified structure would be higher than initially planned but still within the height requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Members of the public were permitted to comment on Parklane's application. Plaintiff asserted that the proposed structure was too large for the lot. He said that the neighborhood consisted primarily of houses he referred to as "capes," presumably meaning houses of a "Cape Cod" style. He stated that the proposed residence would change the character of the neighborhood. Another individual said that Parklane, rather than the neighbors, would benefit from the application. Another person asserted that the value of her house would decline. In response to a question by another individual, Seickel confirmed that the air conditioning system would be located in the rear of the house and shrubs would be planted as a buffer.
The Board voted to grant the requested variances. Thereafter, the Board memorialized its decision in a resolution dated May 17, 2007. In the resolution, the Board noted that the site was presently improved with a single-family residence that was "in very poor condition." The Board pointed out that the lot was non-conforming because it is 75 feet wide, where 120 feet is required, and the lot area is 11,570, where 18,000 square feet is required under the zoning ordinance.
The Board found that Parklane had demonstrated that the proposed structure "will result in a harmonious relationship between this property and others in the area." The Board stated that the variances would not have an "adverse impact and may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good[.]" The Board also concluded that the variances would not substantially impair "the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinances."
In addition, the Board found that the proposed dwelling would "result in an overall aesthetic enhancement of the site" and would be consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -163, which encourage "the promotion of a desirable visual environment." The Board said that the testimony presented at the hearings established that the proposed structure would "not constitute an [over-utilization] of the lot" and the dwelling would be consistent with the purposes of the ordinance, which "is to maintain a prevailing family environment in its one family residential zone district."
On June 1, 2007, plaintiff filed this action in the Law Division seeking, among other relief, a judgment vacating the Board's approval of the variances. The trial court considered the matter on September 19, 2008. The court filed a letter opinion dated October 6, 2008, in which it concluded that the Board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and that the Board's resolution explaining its action provided sufficient reasons for the ...