The New Jersey Supreme Court handed municipalities a significant victory in land-use cases on Monday, unanimously ruling that developers seeking use variances for hospitals, senior housing, schools, childcare centers, and other “inherently beneficial” projects must prove their proposals will not substantially undermine local zoning plans before a variance can be approved.
The ruling modifies a legal standard that has governed such applications for more than three decades, strengthening the role of municipal master plans and zoning ordinances while preserving the special status afforded inherently beneficial uses under the Municipal Land Use Law.
The decision arose from a dispute over Monarch Communities’ proposal to build a 165-unit senior living facility on residentially zoned property in Montville Township. Although senior housing is considered an inherently beneficial use under state law, the township’s zoning board denied the application, concluding that it conflicted with the municipality’s zoning plan and would have significant negative impacts.
Writing for a full court, Justice Anne Patterson said the Court’s landmark 1992 decision in Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Wall no longer fully reflects a 1997 amendment to the Municipal Land Use Law that requires applicants for inherently beneficial uses to satisfy both of the statute’s “negative criteria.”
The Court revised the fourth step of the Sica test to require zoning boards to first determine whether an applicant has demonstrated that a proposed variance “will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinance.” If that showing is not made, the variance must be denied before any balancing of public benefits and detriments occurs.
The justices stressed that applicants for inherently beneficial use remain exempt from the heightened proof standard established in Medici v. BPR Co. for conventional use variances. But they may no longer rely solely on the public value of the proposed use and must instead present evidence of its impact on the municipality’s zoning plan.
The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and sent the case back for reconsideration under the revised standard, expressing no opinion on whether the Montville project ultimately should receive a variance.
