LARRY PRICE v. JOHN CROWLEY et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5177-06T15177-06T1

LARRY PRICE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN CROWLEY and UNION

CITY ZONING BOARD OF

ADJUSTMENT,

Defendants.

________________________________

1ST CONSTITUTION BANK,

Intervenor-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued May 14, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Parker and Kestin.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-4283-06.

Larry Price, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Brian M. Chewcaskie argued the cause for intervenor-respondent (Gittleman, Muhlstock & Chewcaskie, attorneys; Mr. Chewcaskie, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Larry Price, appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, which sought a judgment overturning defendant Union City Board of Adjustment's (Board) approval of defendant John Crowley's application for variances and site plan approval. Crowley sought leave to subdivide a tract into three lots and construct a three-family dwelling on each lot. Price was not among the members of the public who participated in the hearing before the Board as an objector or otherwise, although he has conceded he was present. No objection was lodged by an owner or occupant of property within 200 feet of the tract in question.

After hearing the arguments of the parties in the trial of the action in lieu of prerogative writs, Judge Antonin found that the Board's decision had been based on credible evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Plaintiff argues on appeal, as he did before the trial court, that "the variances granted impair the zone plan and zoning ordinance[,]" that "no adequate special reasons were given for d-5 density variance[,]" and that "the applicant did not meet the c(2) variance requirements.

We have reviewed the record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties, and discern no error or lapse of discretion in Judge Antonin's disposition. We agree substantially with the reasons Judge Antonin articulated in her oral opinion in the matter.

Accordingly, we affirm.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5177-06T1

June 9, 2008