VILMA D'ASCOLI v. THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BERKELEY HEIGHTS UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3981-07T13981-07T1
VILMA D'ASCOLI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF BERKELEY HEIGHTS,
UNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEY,
Defendant-Respondent.
_________________________________________________
Argued January 13, 2009 - Decided
Before Judges Skillman, Graves and Grall.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Docket No.
L-1267-07.
Joseph E. Murray argued the cause for appellant (Schiller & Pittenger, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Murray, of counsel and on
the briefs).
Barry M. Hoffman argued the cause for respondent (Bernstein & Hoffman, P.A., attorneys; Mr. Hoffman, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment in the Law Division, entered on April 1, 2008, which affirmed a resolution of defendant Planning Board of the Township of Berkeley Heights denying plaintiff's application for various bulk variances and minor subdivision approval. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Anzaldi's amended letter opinion, dated March 13, 2008. We agree with the conclusion of the Planning Board and Judge Anzaldi that plaintiff's proposed subdivision of her lot, which is currently occupied by a single residence, into two nonconforming flag lots, which would be occupied by two residences, is not required to relieve plaintiff of any difficulty or hardship in the use of her property and would not advance the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -163. Rather, the proposed subdivision would only provide plaintiff with a more profitable use of her property. Therefore, the bulk variances that would be required for this subdivision do not satisfy the requirements of either N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(1) or (2).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-3981-07T1
January 27, 2009
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.