SOVA PLACE, L.L.C. v. PLANNING BOARD BOROUGH OF MOONACHIE

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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