FUND FOR A BETTER WATERFRONT, INC. v. CITY OF HOBOKEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5677-04T55677-04T5

FUND FOR A BETTER WATERFRONT,

INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CITY OF HOBOKEN ZONING BOARD

OF ADJUSTMENT and STEVENS

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

Defendants-Respondents.

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued March 14, 2006 - Decided March 31, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Lefelt.

On appeal from the Superior Court

of New Jersey, Law Division,

Hudson County, Docket No. L-5196-04.

Michael S. Garofalo argued the cause

for appellant (Laddey, Clark & Ryan,

attorneys; Mr. Garofalo, on the

brief).

Marilyn G. Gittleman argued the cause

for respondent City of Hoboken Zoning

Board of Adjustment (Kaufman, Bern &

Deutsch, attorneys; Douglas M. Bern,

of counsel; Ms. Gittleman, on the

brief).

Timothy J. O'Neill argued the cause

for respondent Stevens Institute of

Technology (Windels, Marx, Lane &

Mittendorf, attorneys; Mr. O'Neill,

of counsel, and Mr. O'Neill and

Sandy L. Galacio, Jr., on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

The Fund for a Better Waterfront, Inc., appeals to this court, claiming that Judge Velazquez erroneously upheld the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment's grant of between eighteen and twenty variances to Stevens Institute of Technology for the construction of a garage. According to the Fund, the Board's approval and the Court's judgment "must be reversed in light of our decision in [Twp. of North Brunswick v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of North Brunswick, 378 N.J. Super. 485 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 266 (2005)]." We disagree and affirm.

Stevens is an institution of higher learning located on an urban campus in Hoboken overlooking the Hudson River and situated in a specially designated R-1(E) higher education zone district, which already contains multiple large buildings. Stevens intends to construct a four story 725-space parking garage, which is a conditional use in the R-1(E) zone.

Stevens sought numerous variances for lot depth, maximum lot coverage, front yard setback, building separation, maximum building length, maximum open space, vertical demarcations, fenestration, garage openings, buffers, principal buildings on the lot, ownership of the garage, building height, maximum setback from adjacent residential zone, fa ade design, and several others. Although the requested variances are clearly numerous, our review of the record causes us to agree with Judge Velazquez's observation that "the variances . . . do not substantially alter the character of the district, but in fact further the intent and purpose of the zone plan, the zoning ordinance, and the municipal land use law."

In this instance, there are no actual residential uses adjacent to the subject property, and the proposed garage will essentially and primarily function as a private garage for Stevens with some public access. The garage will be located on the perimeter of the R-1(E) zone away from the bulk of residential uses in Hoboken. Even if the garage and the academic building to which it will be connected are considered one building, the section that exceeds the height limitation in the ordinance would still be more than 200 feet away from the nearest actual residence, and therefore the governing body's intent to ensure adequate light, air and space would still be met.

Furthermore, the garage will be adjacent to two public parks. By providing parking for Hoboken residents utilizing the parks, the garage will benefit neighboring properties. Since the zoning ordinance requires 1,748 on-campus parking spaces and Stevens presently has only 633 parking spaces, the additional spaces that the garage provides will bring Stevens closer to conformity with the zoning ordinance. Further, the availability of the parking garage will reduce the number of vehicles driving around Hoboken searching for street parking. This will reduce pollution, congestion, illegal parking, and pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.

Although the garage will sit on a small 2.9 acre portion of the entire district and Stevens has sought numerous variances, there is a major distinction between this case and North Brunswick, supra, 378 N.J. Super. 485. As the Fund wisely conceded at oral argument, there is no bright line test, and the sheer number of variances is not determinative of the jurisdictional question. As we pointed out in North Brunswick, "[w]hen the [North Brunswick] Board identified the property in its resolution as ideally suited for a transitional use, the Board ignored the fact that the property had relatively recently been rezoned to preclude such usage." Id. at 494. There is no evidence in this record that Hoboken's Board has "improperly arrogated to itself the power to substitute its idea of an appropriate zone plan." Ibid. (citing Vidal v. Lisanti Foods Inc., 292 N.J. Super. 555, 564 (App. Div. 1996) and Feiler v. Fort Lee Bd. of Adjustment, 240 N.J. Super. 250, 255-56 (App. Div. 1990), certif. denied, 127 N.J. 325 (1991)).

Instead, this record contains a resolution of approximately seventy pages that carefully and meticulously deals with the pertinent variance requirements and sets forth the Board's findings and conclusions clearly and completely. The Board's action, in our view as well as Judge Velazquez's, deserves to be affirmed. Burbridge v. Governing Body of Twp. of Mine Hill, 117 N.J. 376, 385 (1990); Kramer v. Sea Girt Bd. of Adjustment, 45 N.J. 268, 296 (1965).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-5677-04T5

March 31, 2006