389 N.J. Super. 377 - Grubbs v. Slothower’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Since special reasons supporting a particular variance request "must be tailored" to the purpose served by the restriction in the ordinance, Grasso [v. Borough of Spring Lake Heights, 375 N.J.Super. 41 ,] 52[, 866 A. 2d 988 ] [(App.Div.2004)], we examine the purpose of restricting density in a particular zone. The MLUL explicitly recognizes the regulation of the density of development as a general purpose of zoning that contributes to "the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities and regions and preservation of the environment." N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2(e). Density restrictions, in the residential context, and FAR [Floor Area Ratio] restrictions, in the commercial setting, both serve to limit the intensity of the use of the land to be developed. Commercial Realty[ & Res. Corp. v. First Atl. Prop. Co.], 122 N.J. [546,] 561[, 585 A. 2d 928 ] [(1991)]; see also Cox, [New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration] § 7-7.2 at 215 [(2006)]. Special reasons are those that promote the purposes of zoning as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2. Burbridge, supra, 117 N.J. at 386-87 [, 568 A. 2d 527 ]; Medici, supra, 107 N.J. at 10, 18 [, 526 A. 2d 109 ]. Though not expressly stated in the MLUL, the preservation of the character of a neighborhood or property values in that neighborhood have also been recognized as legitimate purposes of zoning. Home Builders League of S. Jersey, Inc. v. Twp. of Berlin, 81 N.J. 127, 145 [, 405 A. 2d 381 ] (1979). A successful applicant for a density variance”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 404 N.J. Super. 295 - Price v. Strategic Capital Partners, LLC

2. “We begin our review of the trial court's decision by recognizing the standards that guide our consideration. "When reviewing the decision of a trial court that has reviewed municipal action, we are bound by the same standards as was the trial court." Fallone Props., L.L.C. v. Bethlehem Twp. Planning Bd., 369 N.J.Super. 552, 561 [, 849 A. 2d 1117 ] (App.Div.2004). Because of its "peculiar knowledge of local conditions," the Board's factual findings are entitled to substantial deference and are presumed to be valid. Burbridge v. Mine Hill Twp., 117 N.J. 376, 385 , 568 A. 2d 527 (1990) (quoting Medici [v. BPR Co.], 107 N.J. [1,] 23[, 526 A. 2d 109 ] [(1987)]); see also Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment, Sea Girt, 45 N.J. 268, 296 [, 212 A. 2d 153 ] (1965). The Board's conclusions of law are subject to de novo review. Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 132 N.J. 509, 518 [, 626 A. 2d 406 ] (1993); Adams v. DelMonte, 309 N.J.Super. 572, 583 [, 707 A. 2d 1061 ] (App.Div.1998). However, "although we construe the governing ordinance de novo, we recognize the board's knowledge of local circumstances and accord deference to its interpretation." Fallone Props., supra, 369 N.J.Super. at 562 [, 849 A. 2d 1117 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 404 N.J. Super. 295 - Price v. Strategic Capital Partners, LLC

3. “the Board's factual findings are entitled to substantial deference and are presumed to be valid. Burbridge v. Mine Hill Twp., 117 N.J. 376, 385 , 568 A. 2d 527 (1990) (quoting Medici [v. BPR Co.], 107 N.J. [1,] 23[, 526 A. 2d 109 ] [(1987)]); see also Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment, Sea Girt, 45 N.J. 268, 296 [, 212 A. 2d 153 ] (1965). The Board's conclusions of law are subject to de novo review. Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 132 N.J. 509, 518 [, 626 A. 2d 406 ] (1993); Adams v. DelMonte, 309 N.J.Super. 572, 583 [, 707 A. 2d 1061 ] (App.Div.1998). However,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 404 N.J. Super. 295 - Price v. Strategic Capital Partners, LLC