520 Victor Street Condominium Association v. Plaza
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
2013 WL 5525719 (2013)
Facts
Raymond Plaza (defendant) applied to the Township of Saddle Brook’s Zoning Board of Adjustment (the board) (defendant) for variances and for approval of a plan to develop a condominium complex (the development). Plaza’s application was opposed by 520 Victor Street Condominium Association (520 Victor Street) (plaintiff), the operator of an adjacent condominium complex. The area in which Plaza wanted to build the development had preexisting sewage and drainage problems. However, instead of exacerbating the preexisting problems, Plaza’s proposed development plan would partially alleviate the problems. The board approved Plaza’s variance application and his site plan but made the approval subject to several conditions. One of the conditions was that Plaza contribute $400,000 to the township for improvements to alleviate the existing sewage and drainage problems. The $400,000 contribution constituted an exaction: a contribution of property demanded by a municipality from a developer in exchange for discretionary approval of a proposed development. The board reached the $400,000 figure without apportioning the cost of improvements between Plaza and other property owners and developers in the area. The Law Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the board’s decision, and 520 Victor Street appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 706,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,400 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
