SOVA PLACE, L.L.C. v. PLANNING BOARD BOROUGH OF MOONACHIE
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0453-04T5453-04T5
SOVA PLACE, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH
OF MOONACHIE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Argued October 11, 2005 - Decided
Before Judges Collester, Lisa and S.L. Reisner.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, L-1782-04.
Priscilla M. Boggia argued the cause for appellant (Durkin & Boggia, attorneys; Ms. Boggia and William R. Betesh, on the brief).
Richard G. Berger argued the cause for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Defendant, Planning Board of the Borough of Moonachie (Board), appeals from a final judgment entered on August 11, 2004 in this action in lieu of prerogative writs, reversing the Board's denial of plaintiff's minor subdivision application and declaring that the minor subdivision as proposed is deemed approved. The reasons for the judgment were expressed by Judge Jonathan N. Harris in a comprehensive forty-page written opinion dated July 30, 2004.
On appeal, the Board contends:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT IT WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND UNREASONABLE FOR THE MAYOR OF THE BOROUGH OF MOONACHIE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE PLANNING BOARD IN LIGHT OF THE HOLDING IN SZOKE V. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MONMOUTH BEACH.
POINT II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED LOT SUITABILITY UNDER THE MOONACHIE CODE.
POINT III
THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED BY DISREGARDING THE SUBSTANTIAL AND VALID ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.
POINT IV
THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED BY SUBSTITUTING ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE PLANNING BOARD AS TO THE ISSUES OF SAFETY AND FLOODING.
We have considered these contentions in light of the record and applicable principles of law, and we reject them. We affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Harris in his thorough and well-reasoned written opinion of July 30, 2004.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-0453-04T5
October 21, 2005
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.