PASCACK VALLEY AREA—Pascack Valley mayors told Pascack Press that a recent state Supreme Court ruling appears to give local land use boards another layer of review and potential control over “inherently beneficial” land uses as defined by the state’s Municipal Land Use Law.
The July 13 Supreme Court ruling in Monarch Communities LLC v. Township of Montville considered the issue of a use variance application and changed the review process for approving beneficial projects, ruling that local planning/zoning boards must first determine whether the proposed use is consistent with the municipal zoning plan before considering the public benefits of the project. If not compatible, the project could be denied.
Montvale Mayor Mike Ghassali took to Facebook to praise the ruling.
“Under the new standard, developers must first show that their proposed project will not substantially undermine a town’s zoning plan or master plan. Only then will the public benefits of the project be weighed against its potential negative impacts,” wrote Ghassali.
He said, “This decision gives towns like ours more power to protect our local zoning and planning decisions, even when a developer argues that a project provides a public benefit.”
Recently, most towns in the Pascack and Northern valleys approved resolutions opposing
S-1836, legislation that allows religious organizations to build high-density inclusionary developments on their properties without needing local planning/zoning approval. Inclusionary developments provide affordable housing, ranging between 15% to 20% of total units.
This new ruling changes the legal framework for approving beneficial projects. According to the state League of Municipalities, the Supreme Court case stemmed from a proposal by a developer to construct a 165-unit senior living facility in Montville. Although senior living is considered an inherently beneficial use, the local zoning board denied the application, saying it conflicted with the town’s zoning plan and could have significant impacts.
According to the SLOM article, the state Supreme Court ruled that zoning boards must first determine whether a proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the local zoning plan before weighing the public benefits of the project. Due to a conflict in statutes covering inherently beneficial uses, the Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision in the applicant’s favor and remanded the matter to an appellate court for application of a new standard for beneficial projects.
However, the Supreme Court did not determine whether the Montville project should receive a variance.
Municipal leaders and organizations statewide have lauded the new Supreme Court ruling. Many say the ruling returns zoning power to where it belongs: with local boards and officials who know what should fit in with their town’s character and master plan.
Ghassali, whose town has spearheaded a 29-town coalition’s ongoing fight against fourth-round affordable housing mandates, took to his Facebook page to proclaim the positive court decision.
“This is one win for the towns. Developers can’t just say, ‘This project is good for you because it’s inherently beneficial, so you have to approve it.’ They now have to show that the project actually fits with the town’s zoning and master plan. The New Jersey Supreme Court changed the rules for projects considered ‘inherently beneficial,’ such as senior housing, hospitals, and schools,” Ghassali wrote.
Woodcliff Lake Mayor Carlos Rendo, whose borough has fought high-density development and prepares for hundreds of new housing units under Fourth Round (2025 to 2035) affordable housing mandates, said the ruling appears to give some zoning powers back to the municipalities.
“It’s a positive for the municipalities, let’s put it that way,” said Rendo, addressing a resident’s question about the ruling at the July 20 council meeting.
“Basically this gives us back some of the power the state is trying to take away from us. It gives those zoning rights back to us. The burden is now on the applicant to prove it’s a benefit to us,” Rendo said. He said that Senate Bill S-1836 was trying to take away local zoning powers, and that it was good to see a decision go in favor of the state’s municipalities.
Rendo said he would be notifying residents of S-1836’s potential harmful impacts in a letter accompanying quarterly tax bills. Most mayors have opposed the legislation, which allows bypassing local zoning authority.
Hillsdale Mayor Michael Sheinfield, whose council passed a resolution opposing five current bills that supersede local zoning regulation at council’s July 21 meeting, said he likes the theme of the Supreme Court ruling.
He said the ruling doesn’t address the bigger problem of legislative efforts afoot to overthrow local zoning authority. He said the Supreme Court ruling was “something minor” when considered in light of recent legislative efforts to curtail municipal zoning powers and oversight.
Sheinfield said the Legislature was trying to get “aggressive” in determining local land uses. The council’s resolution, 26-188, cites five state Senate and Assembly bills charging that they “bypass local government zoning authority with regard to affordable housing.” The bills are Senate bills S-1766, S-1786 and S-1836; Assembly bills are A-3535 and A3576.
Sheinfield noted, “It’s great that we’ve got this ruling but you’re just seeing just the tip of the iceberg,” he said, referring to proposed legislation to curtail or override local zoning. He said though he doubted legislation to curb local zoning would move forward, “the bigger concern is the mindset of legislators.”
Sheinfield said that, although he was glad the towns got a ruling in their favor from the courts, he feared the proposed legislation favoring affordable housing over local zoning control was a bad omen.
“It’s nice that this happened but we’re also responsible for implementing the Fourth Round of affordable housing. Let us do that before they consider adding more housing. This decision is a small, small victory for us,” he said.