Coffee Associates, LLC v. Borough of Edgewater Zoning Board of Adjustment ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1020-22
COFFEE ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent/
Cross-Appellant,
v.
BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
and THREE Y, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents.
________________________________
ERIK C. DIMARCO,
Plaintiff-Appellant/
Cross-Respondent,
v.
BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
and THREE Y, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents.
________________________________
Submitted February 27, 2024 – Decided July 16, 2024
Before Judges Sumners and Rose.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Docket Nos. L-4783-21, L-
2755-22, and L-5588-22.
The Law Offices of Richard Malagiere, attorneys for
appellant/cross-respondent Erik C. DiMarco (Richard
Malagiere, Leonard E. Seaman, and Frank Rivellini, on
the briefs).
Jeffrey A. Bronster, attorney for respondent/cross-
appellant Coffee Associates, LLC.
Denise M. Travers, attorney for respondent Borough of
Edgewater Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Beattie Padovano, LLC, attorneys for respondent Three
Y, LLC (Daniel L. Steinhagen, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In these three consolidated Law Division complaints in lieu of prerogative
writs, plaintiffs Erik C. DiMarco and Coffee Associates, L.L.C. appeal and
cross-appeal the trial court's order dismissing their challenge to defendant
Borough of Edgewater Zoning Board of Adjustment's decision granting
defendant Three Y LLC's application under the Municipal Land Use Law
(MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -136, seeking a height variance for its mixed-
use development project. We affirm.
I.
A-1020-22
2
Three Y's Development Project
Edgewater, like other communities bordering the Hudson River
overlooking New York City, has been a prime site for developers seeking to
transform former industrial sites into modern residential, retail, and commercial
office space. In 2001, Three Y obtained Board site plan approval to construct a
nine-story hotel on two lots it owned in Edgewater. In 2012, the Edgewater
Planning Board amended its Master Plan creating a mixed-use zone covering the
development project site.1
In October 2020, after the development project stalled due to site
remediation, Three Y applied to amend the site plan approval to include multiple
buildings, featuring a fifteen-story 170-room hotel, 150 apartments, a four-level
parking garage, two restaurants, and a landscaped courtyard. Germane to this
appeal is a variance request for the hotel's height to be 187.65 feet, a 70.6 percent
increase over the zoning ordinance maximum limit of 110 feet. The Board's
consideration of Three Y's application consumed four meetings. Three Y
presented testimony of a professional engineer, traffic engineer, architect, and
1
In Edgewater, the Planning Board adopts and amends the Master Plan, while
the Zoning Board interprets and enforces the zoning ordinance. Edgewater, N.J.,
Code §§ 240-13(A), 240-26(A).
A-1020-22
3
urban planning expert. Counsel for the opposing neighboring towns of Cliffside
Park and North Bergen cross-examined Three Y's witnesses, as did several
North Bergen and Edgewater residents.
As a result of several Board members' concerns, Three Y agreed at the
final hearing on May 13, 2021, to reduce the hotel's height to 162 feet by
eliminating two floors with the other buildings being no taller than 156 feet tall.
At the meeting's conclusion, the Board unanimously approved the application
and granted all variances requested, including the reduced height variance.
Later, on June 2, 2021, the Board memorialized its decision by unanimously
adopting a resolution (2021 Resolution) setting forth its factual findings and
identifying the exhibits and testimony the Board considered. As required by
local ordinance, notice announcing approval of Three Y's application was
published in the local newspaper.2
Coffee Associates' Claims
On July 19, 2021, Coffee Associates, which owns property across the
street from the development project site, filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative
writs against the Board and Three Y to void approval of Three Y's variance
2
The notice is not included in the record, and the parties' submissions provide
conflicting dates of June 5 or June 9 regarding the publication date.
A-1020-22
4
application and the 2021 Resolution. The complaint alleged the Board failed to:
(1) follow the notice requirements set forth in its local ordinance, Edgewater,
N.J., Code § 240-36(B) and (J), and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d); and (2) afford
Coffee Associates proper notice "as a property owner within 200 feet of" the
development project site.
While the action was pending, the Board issued an undated notice stating
it would conduct a meeting on April 6, 2022, regarding Three Y's application as
"previously considered at meetings of the [Board] that were held on [February
23, March 23, April 13,] and May 13, 2021" in order to "take corrective remedial
action . . . to the extent required[] to address any claims that adequate notice of
those meetings was not provided." The notice also stated Three Y did "not
intend to produce any additional witnesses or evidence at the hearing, but will
instead rely upon the hearing record created at those prior hearings," which was
available to the public.
In response, Coffee Associates, on March 29, 2022, moved to dismiss its
complaint as moot. However, the Board did not hold the scheduled meeting
after two Board members' deaths left it without a quorum. On April 6, Three Y
cross-moved for a limited remand to allow the Board to take corrective remedial
action under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21.
A-1020-22
5
The next day, Coffee Associates withdrew its motion to dismiss since the
scheduled Board meeting did not occur.
On April 13, the trial court granted Three Y's cross-motion following a
trial de novo. In its order and written opinion granting the cross-motion, the
court remanded the matter to the Board to readopt the 2021 Resolution upon
taking the appropriate remedial action. The order allowed Coffee Associates the
right to amend its complaint if "readoption of the resolution is insufficient to
cure any alleged [notice] defect."
DiMarco's Claims
DiMarco, an Edgewater resident, also filed a complaint in lieu of
prerogative writs against the Board and Three Y to void approval of Three Y's
variance application and the 2021 Resolution. The complaint alleged: (1) the
2021 Resolution was insufficient in granting the variances by "simply
declar[ing] that the benefits outweigh the detriments"; (2) the Board acted
arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably; (3) the Board incorrectly found "the
proposed development 'can be constructed without any significant adverse or
detrimental traffic upon the adjacent roadway system'" or "decrease in the safety
of residents in the area"; (4) Three Y failed to give proper notice to nearby
A-1020-22
6
property owners as required by the MLUL; and (5) defendants failed to give
proper notice to the public when Three Y presented its application to the Board.
The trial court subsequently granted the Three Y's motion to dismiss
DiMarco's complaint on the grounds it was time-barred and he lacked standing
to challenge the Board's decision. DiMarco appealed and this court reversed,
concluding the development project's size warranted relaxing the time bar and
DiMarco's status as an Edgewater resident conferred sufficient standing to
challenge whether the Board "grant[ed] a major deviation from [Edgewater's]
zoning ordinance." DiMarco v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, No. A-0416-21
(App. Div. May 18, 2022) (slip op. at 7-11).
Board's Remand Proceeding
Following the trial court's remand order, the Board met again on May 9,
2022. In view of the Board's two new members, its counsel stated on the record
that the new members certified in writing they had "reviewed everything,
including the transcripts of all those prior hearings" involving Three Y's
application. Coffee Associates and Three Y's counsel addressed the Board;
DiMarco did not attend the meeting and no other public member accepted an
invitation to address the Board or Three Y.
A-1020-22
7
The Board voted unanimously to approve Three Y's application for the
same reasons set forth in the 2021 Resolution. The vote was memorialized in a
second resolution (2022 Resolution) referencing the reasons set forth in the 2021
Resolution, which was appended as an exhibit. However, the fourteen-page
appended resolution differed from the 2021 Resolution. First, the appended
resolution was dated May 9, 2021, not June 2, 2021. Second, the appended
resolution included a "Conclusions of Law" section that was not included in the
2021 Resolution. Though this section's contents largely mirrored the legal
conclusions orally set forth at the Board's June 2, 2021 meeting, it misleadingly
included three one-sentence paragraphs opposing the requested variances.
Coffee Associates and DiMarco's Renewed Challenge
Upon reviewing the 2022 Resolution, Coffee Associates amended its
complaint, alleging the Board inadequately reapproved Three Y's application
without first hearing new testimony or allowing the public to present new
evidence. It also claimed the 2022 Resolution was procedurally void because
the Board "improperly allowed alternate [Board members] to vote on the
resolution notwithstanding the presence of three Board members who were
neither 'absent' nor 'disqualified.'" Further, Coffee Associates claimed the Board
A-1020-22
8
could not simply incorporate by reference the reasoning it previously set forth
in the 2021 Resolution to comply with the trial court's remand.
DiMarco filed a new complaint in lieu of prerogative writs against the
Board and Three Y, largely echoing the allegations in his first complaint and
Coffee Associates' amended complaint. The trial court consolidated Coffee
Associates' complaint and DiMarco's two complaints. Following a trial de novo,
the court issued an order and written opinion affirming the Board's adoption of
the 2022 Resolution. Plaintiffs appeal that order.
II.
Our standard of review of a zoning board's decision to grant a variance is
very generous; the reviewing court need only determine whether the zoning
board's decision was supported by the record, as established during the hearings,
and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. See J.D. Constr. Corp. v.
Isaacs, 51 N.J. 263, 270 (1968); Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment, 45 N.J. 268, 296
(1965); Cohen v. Bd. of Adjustment, 396 N.J. Super. 608, 615 (App. Div. 2007).
The reviewing court may not substitute its own independent judgment for that
of the zoning board; review is limited to "whether the board could reasonably
have reached its decision." Davis Enters. v. Karpf, 105 N.J. 476, 485 (1987);
Cummins v. Bd. of Adjustment, 39 N.J. Super. 452, 460 (App. Div. 1956).
A-1020-22
9
Courts, however, generally show less deference towards grants than denials of
use variances. Saddle Brook Realty, LLC v. Twp. of Saddle Brook Zoning Bd.
of Adjustment, 388 N.J. Super. 67, 75 (App. Div. 2006). "Variances to allow
new nonconforming uses should be granted only sparingly and with great
caution since they tend to impair sound zoning." Kohl v. Mayor of Fair Lawn,
50 N.J. 268, 275 (1967); see also Burbridge v. Governing Body of Mine Hill,
117 N.J. 376, 385 (1990).
We review questions of law de novo. Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. Zoning Bd.
of Adjustment, 233 N.J. 546, 559 (2018). Zoning boards have "'no peculiar skill
superior to the courts' regarding purely legal matters." Ibid. (quoting Chicalese
v. Monroe Twp. Plan. Bd., 334 N.J. Super. 413, 419 (Law Div. 2000)).
Guided by these principles, we separately address and reject plaintiffs'
contentions on appeal.
Curing Prior Notice Defects
Coffee Associates contends the Board's readoption of the improperly
noticed 2021 Resolution without hearing new testimony on remand violated the
public's right to challenge Three Y's application "at properly noticed meetings."
It cites the OPMA's plain language in N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(b), requiring a court to
A-1020-22
10
"declare such action void" when "taken at a meeting which does not conform to
the" statute.
Coffee Associates criticizes our high court's ruling in Polillo v. Deane, 74
N.J. 562, 577-78 (1977), because it "interpreted the remedial discretion of the
judiciary much more broadly" than contemplated in the OPMA's literal
language. Coffee Associates alternatively argues that even if Polillo were
correctly decided, it did not afford the trial court the authority to find the 2022
Resolution satisfied the OPMA. (CPb13-14). It contends that, unlike the charter
study commission's limited powers to only recommend ballot measures in
Polillo, the Board has binding authority over variances, making its defective
notice especially egregious by not conducting a new hearing.
Coffee Associates also contends the 2022 Resolution is procedurally void
because "there is no way of knowing whether or not [the new Board members]
agreed with, or even were cognizant of the [Board] making those findings" at
the hearings culminating in the 2021 Resolution. Finally, Coffee Associates
maintains the court erred by minimizing the substantial mistake of the appended
resolution's three legal conclusions opposing Three Y's application. The legal
conclusions were not merely a "scrivener's error" because they misinformed the
A-1020-22
11
public and forced readers to figure out which portions of the appended resolution
were correct.
DiMarco's contentions mirror Coffee Associates' challenge. He also
claims the Board prohibited the public from conducting any cross-examination
when it adopted the 2022 Resolution, as was done with the improperly noticed
2021 meetings.
As for the argument that Polillo was incorrectly decided because the
record fails to evidence this argument was raised before the trial court, we
should not even consider it. See Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 227 (2014)
("[D]eclin[ing] to consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial
court when an opportunity for such a presentation is available unless the
questions so raised on appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern
matters of great public interest." (quoting State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20
(2009))). Yet, even if we were to consider the argument, we have been presented
no reasonable basis to contemplate that Polillo is no longer good law, nor to
suggest that our high court should rethink its holding; Polillo's almost fifty-year-
old standard remains sound.
The trial court's reliance on Polillo is firmly supported by the record.
Polillo held the OPMA requires "strict adherence to the letter of the law . . . in
A-1020-22
12
considering whether a violation of [the OPMA's provisions] has occurred." 74
N.J. at 578. But "substantial compliance" "carries some weight on the question
of" how much "remedy and relief" is needed. Id. at 579. In permitting
"remedial" measures, N.J.S.A. 10:4-15 "contemplate[s] maximum flexibility in
rectifying governmental action which falls short of the standards of openness
prescribed for the conduct of official business." Ibid. Therefore, "it is entirely
proper to consider the nature, quality and effect of the noncompliance of the
particular offending governmental body in fashioning the corrective measures
which must be taken to conform with the statute." Ibid. Because in Polillo the
fault rested in the public participation, and not in "any deliberative or executive
action by the [public body]," it was unnecessary to void "hearings at which
testimony and evidence were received," allowing the public body to "in its sound
discretion utilize so much of the" existing "testimony and evidence . . . as it
deems necessary" when readopting the improperly noticed action. Id. at 579-
80.
The trial court appropriately ordered the Board to take corrective action
as the Supreme Court did in Polillo. The record supported the court's finding
that Coffee Associates called no witnesses to oppose the application at the 2022
meeting. DiMarco's argument that the court incorrectly stated no members of
A-1020-22
13
the public appeared at the meeting is baseless—the parties to this appeal spoke
at the meeting and the public had the opportunity to speak. That fact, coupled
with the questions Three Y's experts answered from members of the public in
2021, do not suggest the Board "deprived" anyone of access. Forcing the Board
to reevaluate Three Y's application anew serves no constructive purpose. See
Gandolfi v. Town of Hammonton, 367 N.J. Super. 527, 540 (App. Div. 2004)
(noting the OPMA "balance[s] the rights of an informed citizenry against the
need of government to function effectively" (citations omitted)).
The Board's curative action on remand complied with Polillo. Before
voting on the 2022 Resolution, the Board's counsel confirmed on the record that
the two new Board members had certified in writing that they reviewed the 2021
hearing transcripts, satisfying the voting eligibility requirements set forth in the
MLUL for officials in their situation. See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10.2; Mercurio v.
Delvecchio, 285 N.J. Super. 328, 331-34 (App. Div. 1995) (affirming the zoning
board's vote in similar circumstances). While the parties did not provide the
Board members' certifications, nothing in the record contradicts their
representations. As for the appended resolution's discrepancies, plaintiffs
appropriately criticize the Board for its carelessness. But the trial court did not
A-1020-22
14
err in excusing three mistaken clauses in a fourteen-page resolution whose
contents otherwise uniformly supported granting the variances requested.
Finally, the trial court determined Coffee Associates' OPMA challenge
time-barred, as the statute required its complaint be filed within forty-five days
of the Board's decision. See N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(a) ("provisions of this act shall
be voidable in a proceeding in lieu of prerogative writ in the Superior Court,
which proceeding may be brought by any person within 45 days after the action
sought to be voided has been made public"). Coffee Associates did not raise an
OPMA challenge to the 2021 Resolution until March 2022, ten months after it
was published in June 2021, and did not request any extension of the forty-five-
day deadline. DiMarco did not raise his OPMA challenge to the 2021 Resolution
until filing his second complaint in May 2022.
Since plaintiffs did not address the timeliness issue on appeal, they waived
any response to defendants' argument that the court correctly determined the
OPMA challenge was time-barred. See N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Alloway
Township, 438 N.J. Super. 501, 505 n.2 (App. Div. 2015) (noting an issue not
briefed on appeal is deemed waived). The trial court, however, misapplied the
time bar, though this error does not alter our affirming its ruling that plaintiff's
complaints were properly dismissed. See Hayes v. Delamotte, 231 N.J. 373, 387
A-1020-22
15
(2018) ("A trial court judgment that reaches the proper conclusion must be
affirmed even if it is based on the wrong reasoning.").
Contrary to the court's finding, DiMarco cited the OPMA to void the
Board's action in his first complaint, which this court concluded was not time-
barred because "the interest of justice" warranted extending the statutory
deadline for complaints in lieu of prerogative writs under Rule 4:69-6(c).
DiMarco, slip op. at 2-3. While Coffee Associates did not rely upon the OPMA
in its initial complaint, it filed the complaint on July 19, 2021, within forty-five
days of both possible publication dates of the notice of decision. Thus, under
the OPMA, Coffee Associates timely challenged the 2021 Resolution by
bringing "a proceeding in lieu of prerogative writ . . . within 45 days after the
[2021 Resolution was] made public." See N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(a).
Board's Grant of Height Variance
Interestingly, only DiMarco, who does not live in the immediate
neighborhood of the development project––unlike where Coffee Associates'
property is situated—argues the Board and trial court erred in granting Three Y
the height variance. He argues the variance was granted without determining if
it would cause substantial detriment to surrounding properties. See Medici v.
BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1, 22 n.12 (1987) (citing Yahnel v. Jamesburg, 79 N.J. Super.
A-1020-22
16
509, 519 (App. Div. 1963)). He claims there was no testimony focusing on the
development project's impact on Coffee Associate's property: the shadow cast;
blocked sunlight; and blocked east facing views.
DiMarco argues the Board improperly found the height variance would
not substantially impair the zoning ordinance's purpose and intent. He posits
the mayor and council carefully crafted each zone's boundaries and height
restrictions to account for elevation changes as one approaches the Palisade
Cliffs to give all properties in the area views of the Hudson River and New York
skyline. He maintains the development project provides the same benefits
without a height variance, and Three Y did not specifically prove the variances
would either enhance the project's benefits or reduce its detriments to the
surrounding area.
DiMarco likens the Board's failings to the conduct challenged in Jacoby
v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 442 N.J. Super. 450, 468 (App. Div. 2015), where
this court concluded the zoning board inadequately limited its analysis to a
proposed development's aesthetic benefits. The Board could not only consider
Edgewater's population growth and changing local needs; it had to explicitly
confront the possibility that the requested height variance would interfere with
the zoning ordinance's intent and purpose.
A-1020-22
17
In responding to these arguments, the Board and Three Y maintain the
record supports the Board's decision to grant the height variance. Three Y
presented four experts' testimony detailing the development project's
architectural, traffic, and urban planning implications, and adjusted its proposal
based on public comments. Its planner testified as to the final height's potential
effect on sunlight, air, and open space, and the Board accepted his testimony as
credible. Based on the record, the Board determined the development project's
final height was consistent with the surrounding neighborhood's character,
noting the Metropolitan, a fourteen-story apartment across the street, was taller
than the proposed hotel. The Board memorialized its factfinding process in the
2021 Resolution, identifying relevant aspects from each witness's testimony.
Three Y also adds DiMarco incorrectly claims the trial court should have
considered evidence outside the record when deciding whether the Board had
sufficient evidence warranting its decision.
The MLUL permits zoning boards to grant a variance "[i]n particular cases
for special reasons" to allow "a height of a principal structure which exceeds by
10 feet or 10% the maximum height permitted in the district for a principal
structure." N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(6). To obtain a use variance, an applicant
must satisfy the principles enunciated in Medici, 107 N.J. at 21, which requires,
A-1020-22
18
like the request for a height variance, a showing of special reasons for the
variance (positive criteria) as well as a showing that the variance sought is not
inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance
(negative criteria).
While the party seeking a use variance initially bears the burden of proof,
Price v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263, 286 (2013), on appeal, the burden of proof
shifts to the party challenging the zoning board's decision, Dunbar, 233 N.J. at
558. Thus, plaintiffs must show the Board's decision is not "fairly sustainable
by the record." Leon N. Weiner & Assocs. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 144
N.J. Super. 509, 520 (App. Div. 1976).
The record demonstrates the Board "followed the statutory guidelines and
properly exercised its discretion" when approving Three Y's application. See
Med. Ctr. at Princeton v. Twp. of Princeton Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 343 N.J.
Super. 177, 199 (App. Div. 2001). DiMarco tries to minimize the extensive
testimony the Board considered by posing "what ifs." But Three Y's experts'
testimony was consistent with the record's supporting documents. See Nextel
of N.Y., Inc. v. Borough of Englewood Cliffs Bd. of Adjustment, 361 N.J. Super.
22, 42-43 (App. Div. 2003). The Board found these experts credible and
afforded their opinions the weight it felt was appropriate. See ibid. DiMarco
A-1020-22
19
makes no showing that the Board abused its discretion in relying on their
testimony.
DiMarco's argument that the Board misapplied the positive and negative
criteria to the record is equally unpersuasive. The Board identified facts
addressing both criteria. The proposed uses—hotel, multi-family homes, and
restaurants—are in line with the objectives set forth in the zoning ordinance for
the mixed zone, which include "allow[ing] for an expansion of the types of uses
permitted in the area to encourage redevelopment" and "establish[ing] economic
anchors to draw steady crowds, create an active street life[,] and encourage
spinoff businesses." Edgewater, N.J., Code § 240-117.3(A)(1), (6).
Three Y demonstrated "special reason[s]" grounded in "a peculiar feature"
specific to the property. Vidal v. Lisanti Foods, Inc., 292 N.J. Super. 555, 565
(App. Div. 1996). Its planning expert described how the development project
accommodated the neighborhood's existing makeup, with a taller building nearer
to neighboring high-rises and a shorter building next to a structure of similar
height. This design ensured surrounding buildings would still receive sufficient
sunlight. There was also testimony that the development project would be
shorter than the surrounding buildings, including the Metropolitan across the
street and would not block views from the Palisade Cliffs to the west.
A-1020-22
20
Accordingly, the trial court properly affirmed the Board's decision, which was
not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in granting Three Y's height variance.
To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of plaintiffs'
arguments, it is because we conclude they have insufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-1020-22
21