Opinion

SUNNYSIDE MANOR v. THE TOWNSHIP OF WALL

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Filed: May 29, 2020
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 25.2%

“The right of an interested party to appeal the issuance of a zoning permit—to have her concerns ‘heard’—is rooted in principles of property rights, specifically the right to not be deprived of an interest in one's property without process.”

How later courts described this case

“The right of an interested party to appeal the issuance of a zoning permit—to have her concerns ‘heard’—is rooted in principles of property rights, specifically the right to not be deprived of an interest in one's property without process.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

: Civil Action No. 02-02902 (SRC)

SUNNYSIDE MANOR, INC.,

Plaintiff, : OPINION

TOWNSHIP OF WALL AND BOARD OF :

ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF :

WALL,

Defendants.

CHESLER, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to hold Defendants, Township

of Wall and the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Wall, in contempt of the consent order,

the Wall Township Planning Board’s cross-motion for leave to intervene, and Wall Township’s

cross-motion to enforce the settlement.

The motions have been fully briefed, and the Court has reviewed the papers filed by the

parties. It proceeds to rule on the motions without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For

the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Wall Township Planning Board’s cross-motion

for leave to intervene, will deny Plaintiff’s motion to hold Defendants in contempt of the consent

order, and will deny Wall Township’s cross-motion to enforce the settlement.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a civil action that was brought by Plaintiff Sunnyside Manor, Inc. (“Sunnyside

Manor” or “Sunnyside”) in 2002. In the original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants

violated the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the substantive due process

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Sunnyside Manor, a senior living community in Wall Township, New Jersey,

brought this lawsuit based on Wall Township’s refusal to grant Sunnyside Manor a variance that

would allow it to expand its building. The action was ultimately resolved through a Consent

Order that was reached by the parties and approved by this Court. The Court retained jurisdiction

of the matter in order to enforce the terms of the Consent Order.

a. THE CONSENT ORDER

On or about November 20, 2006, the parties agreed to resolve the matter and entered into

a consent decree. The terms of the settlement were detailed in the Consent Order that was issued

by this Court. The Consent Order required that Sunnyside Manor be provided the right to

purchase the property known as “Lot 39 Block 805 on the Wall Township Tax Map.” (Consent

Order ¶ 1.) The Township agreed to convey a portion of its open space property, Lot 25, in order

to “square off” Sunnyside’s parcel of land. Sunnyside was to retain title to Lot 2 which would be

“dedicated or restricted for conservation purposes” and “subject to the Payment in Lieu of Tax

Agreement.” (Consent Order ¶ 2.) In addition to providing Sunnyside Manor with the

opportunity to obtain property, the Consent Order also required that the Township “grant any and

all variances necessary for the creation of the two R-60 lots designated as lots 3 and 4 in Exhibit

A.” (Consent Order ¶ 3.) With respect to the new Sunnyside property, the Consent Order

stipulated that the Township would enact a Mt. Laurel Congregate Care (MLCC) ordinance

which would be based upon the concept plan for the new facility and that “[t]here [would] be

either no variances required or any necessary variances for this inherently beneficial facility

[would] be favorably considered by the Township and its agency, the Planning Board.” (Consent

Order ¶ 4.) The new facility was to be a permitted use as a matter of right under the rezoning.

The Consent Order also required the Township to adopt Ordinance No. 24-2006. The

ordinance established design criteria for properties located in certain zones and mandated that

“any new development on the [] properties [would] be predominately for office use” and that

buildings would be appropriately landscaped and buffered. (Consent Order ¶ 6.)

Per the consent order, Sunnyside was also afforded the right to prepare and file an

application for the site plan approval of its new facility with the Wall Township Planning Board.

The Board was to hear and approve Sunnyside’s application within thirty days after Sunnyside’s

application was rendered complete.

The Consent Order further mandated that the Township agree that Sunnyside would “be

entitled to make application for an eight-lot subdivision of its existing property” to the

appropriate representatives, as well as the Wall Township Planning Board. Each lot was to be a

minimum of 30,000 square feet in size, and the Township was to “grant any and all necessary

bulk variances for this subdivision.” (Consent Order ¶ 9.) Additionally, Sunnyside was provided

the right to prepare and file an application for subdivision approval for the existing Sunnyside

property with the Planning Board. The Consent Order further instructed that the Planning Board

was to “hear and approve Sunnyside’s application within thirty (30) days after the date on which

the application [was] deemed to be complete.” (Consent Order ¶ 10.)

The parties also agreed, per the Consent Order, that a number of beds located at

Sunnyside’s new facility would be designated for low and moderate income individuals. The

requirements and regulations to be applied in determining the number of beds and what persons

would qualify for the beds was to be determined by the parties at a later date. The Consent Order

further discussed particular requirements related to this stipulation. Notably, because Sunnyside

was to set aside beds for low and moderate income persons, the Township agreed to provide

Sunnyside with a Payment In Lieu of Tax Agreement for the entire facility located on the new

property.

The Consent Order was “binding on the Township and the Board of Adjustment, its

Agents and agencies, employees, and successors” as well as “Sunnyside, its agents, employees,

successors, and assignees.” (Consent Order ¶ 22.) This Court retained jurisdiction of the matter

to enforce the terms of the Order.

II. SUBJECT MOTIONS

On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to find Defendants in contempt of the

Consent Order and for appropriate sanctions. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

granted and considered granting variances to businesses that intended to construct commercial

and industrial sites. Additionally, Sunnyside Manor claims that the Township of Wall has

refused to allow Sunnyside Manor to expand its parking lot and build a storage building on the

property. Plaintiff claims that the Consent Order states that it “does not need to file an

application for a variance, and the Township’s refusal to allow Sunnyside Manor to build its

parking lot expansion and storage building violates the Consent Order.” (Plaintiff’s Brief 22.)

In response, the Township of Wall filed a cross-motion to enforce the settlement among

the parties. In its cross-motion, the Township of Wall requests that the Court enforce the

component of the Consent Order addressing Plaintiff’s obligation to participate in the

Township’s affordable housing program. Additionally, the Township of Wall opposes Sunnyside

Manor’s motion to hold Defendants in contempt. The Township argues that the motion should be

denied because Plaintiff failed to join necessary and indispensable parties, Plaintiff misinterprets

the Consent Order, and the Township has no authority to grant the required variance that

Sunnyside Manor requests.

On March 17, 2020, the Wall Township Planning Board filed a cross-motion for leave to

intervene. The Planning Board simultaneously filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to hold

Defendants in contempt of the Consent Order. In a letter dated April 3, 2020, Plaintiff’s attorney

indicated that Sunnyside Manor consents to the Planning Board’s motion to intervene insofar as

it seeks to allow the Planning Board to intervene in the action. As such, Plaintiff, as well as this

Court, interpret the remaining arguments made by the Planning Board as the Planning Board’s

opposition to Plaintiff’s original motion.

III. DISCUSSION

a. WALL TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD’S CROSS-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

INTERVENE

The Wall Township Planning Board filed its cross-motion to intervene on March 17,

2020. On March 18, 2020, the Wall Township Planning Board filed a motion to amend/correct

the cross-motion to intervene. Counsel for the Planning Board explained in a letter addressed to

the Court that it sought to amend its counterstatement of facts only and that the changes did not

affect the legal arguments that were presented in its brief. The Court has confirmed same and

will grant the Wall Township Planning Board’s motion to amend/correct the cross-motion to

intervene.

The Wall Township Planning Board moves to intervene in the matter under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 24. Plaintiff Sunnyside Manor consents to the Planning Board’s cross-motion

to intervene.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) directs that:

the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims an

interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of

the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a

practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its

interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

In the matter at bar, it appears that Plaintiff seeks relief which would impede the interests of the

Planning Board and this interest is not represented by any of the named Defendants. In its

motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order the Township to deny an application that is currently

pending before the Planning Board. Because the duty to hear and decide land use applications

lies with the Planning Board and not the Township, the relief that Plaintiff seeks would divest the

Planning Board of its role, which is prescribed under New Jersey statute. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-37.

Thus, because the Planning Board “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that

is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical

matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest,” the Court will grant the

Planning Board’s motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2).

b. SUNNYSIDE MANOR’S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF

THE CONSENT ORDER

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated the terms of the Consent Order and moves

for this Court to hold Defendants in contempt.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants approved a variance allowing Lot 4 to be

subdivided into Lots 4.01 and 4.02. Lot 4.02 was then sold to Wall Storage Associates, LLC, and

Defendants then approved final site plans allowing Wall Storage to construct a storage facility on

the property. Plaintiff argues that the storage facility is not a permitted use per the Consent Order

and is in violation of Ordinance No. 24-2006 as to size and usage.

Plaintiff further claims that Defendants are in violation of the Consent Order because

Twin Resources, Inc. submitted an application for a “major preliminary and final site plan with

bulk variances for a commercial landscaping operation.”1 (Plaintiff’s Brief 14.) Plaintiff argues

that because the proposed development is not predominately for office use, the intended uses,

which are detailed in the pending application, violate the Consent Order and Ordinance No. 24-

2006.

Sunnyside Manor contends that the Township’s failure to remediate violations on Lot

7.01 constitutes a violation of the Consent Order as well as Ordinance No. 24-2006. On March

20, 2018, the Township conducted a site inspection on Lot 7.01. This parcel of land contains an

asphalt production facility operated by PSC Material. Following the site inspection, the

Township issued violations to PSC Material for several deficiencies. Plaintiff appears to argue

that the Township is in violation of the Consent Order and Ordinance No. 24-2006 because it has

failed to enforce PSC Material’s compliance with local ordinances. Moreover, Plaintiff also

claims that the asphalt production facility itself violates the Consent Order and Ordinance No.

24-2006 as it is not predominately for office use and is not appropriately maintained.

Finally, Plaintiff has requested permission to expand its parking lot and build a storage

facility on its property. In response to this request, Township officials informed Plaintiff that it

would need to file an application for a variance. Plaintiff claims that the Consent Order stipulates

that it would not be required to obtain a variance for the expansion of its parking lot, or for the

1 The application was filed by Twin Resources on June 26, 2019 and remains pending. The Wall Township Planning

Board has yet to review the application because of the pending motion.

construction of the storage facility. Thus, by requiring Plaintiff to file an application for a

variance, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated the terms of the Consent Order.

In response, Defendant Wall Township asserts that Plaintiff misinterprets the Consent

Order and that the Consent Order did not confer upon Plaintiff the right to control all of the

development along Ridgewood Road. The Township states that Plaintiff must apply for

variances and approval to improve its property, and the Consent Order does not, and cannot,

exempt Plaintiff from these required processes. Further, the Township argues that the Consent

Order does not and cannot mandate that the Township or the Board of Adjustment deprive other

property owners of their right to apply for land use variances. The Township asserts that it has

not violated the terms of the Consent Order, and therefore, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied.

Additionally, the Township contends that the motion should be dismissed on alternative grounds

for failure to join necessary and indispensable parties.

The Wall Township Planning Board also opposes Plaintiff’s motion and claims that

Plaintiff misunderstands what benefits were conferred upon it through the Consent Order. The

Planning Board states that Plaintiff’s understanding of the Consent Order seeks to impermissibly

expand those rights and benefits.

The Consent Order reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

The Township has enacted an ordinance (Ordinance no. 24-2006)

establishing design criteria for the properties located in the OR-5

zone on Ridgewood Road and Atlantic Avenue including Lots 4, 5,

7.01 and 7.02 in Block 806. The purpose of the aforesaid ordinance

is to ensure that any new development on the aforesaid properties

will be predominately for office use; that no loading docks or other

industrial type appurtenances will be permitted; and that any

buildings to be constructed will be appropriately landscaped and

buffered and will have facades of brick or other material

appropriate for Class A office development.

(Consent Order ¶ 6.) The Consent Order documented the purpose of Ordinance No. 24-2006,

which had already been enacted at the time that the Consent Order was agreed upon by the

parties and issued by this Court. The Consent Order did not, however, mandate that the Wall

Township Planning Board, the Board of Adjustment, or the Township deny use variances to

property owners in the OR-5 zone.2 Similarly, the Consent Order did not deprive property

owners of their statutory right to file applications for variances. Finally, the Consent Order

provided no guidance or mandates regarding the Township’s enforcement of Ordinance No. 24-

2006. Thus, Sunnyside Manor’s claims that approval of the site plans for the construction of a

storage facility on Lot 4.02, Twin Resources’ submission of an application for the proposed

development of a commercial landscaping operation, and the Township’s failure to remediate

violations on Lot 7.01 constitute violations of the Consent Order are unsubstantiated.

With respect to Plaintiff’s claim that the Consent Order mandates the denial of

applications for design waivers and use variances, Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Consent Order

is incorrect. The Consent Order does not include any such requirement. Rather, the Consent

Order simply confirmed the purpose of Ordinance No. 24-2006. Moreover, had there been a

stipulation in the Consent Order mandating such a result, the Court would have to render the

Consent Order ultra vires. The Consent Order cannot deprive the Wall Township Planning Board

of its statutory duty to hear and decide land use applications. See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68.

Additionally, the Consent Order cannot divest property owners of their important property rights,

2 It should be noted that the Supreme Court of New Jersey has long protected the powers of the planning and zoning

boards. “The planning and zoning boards are not only protected by statute; courts have also protected their powers to

rule on zoning and planning matters from adulterat[ion] or interfere[nce] . . . by acts of local governing bodies or

officials.” Paruszewski v. Township of Elsinboro, 154 N.J. 45, 54 (1998) (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly,

rather than filing the subject motion, had Plaintiff intended on contesting the decision of the Wall Township Board

of Adjustment, Plaintiff’s only appropriate avenue to appeal the Board’s decision would have been to file an action

in lieu of prerogative writs under Rule 4:69. See Hopewell Valley Citizens’ Group, Inc. v. Berwind Property Group

Development Co., L.P., 204 N.J. 569, 577 (2011). Plaintiff had forty-five (45) days to file such action in the

appropriate vicinage of the Superior Court of New Jersey.

namely, their right to apply for variances, seek relief from decisions made by local officials and

their right to be heard on such applications. See Harz v. Borough of Spring Lake, 234 N.J. 317,

333, reconsideration denied, 235 N.J. 119 (2018) (“The right of an interested party to appeal the

issuance of a zoning permit—to have her concerns ‘heard’—is rooted in principles of property

rights, specifically the right to not be deprived of an interest in one's property without process.”);