October 5, 2011

ie # % In a very important case, Medici v. BPR Co. 107 NJ, 1 (1987), the Supreme Court of New Jersey set forth specific requirements when dealing with the négative criteria. The Court indicated that an enhanced quality of proof by the applicant and clear and specific findings by the Board of Adjustment are required to prove that the grant of a use variance is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance. These proofs and findings would provide a substantive basis for the concluding statement that the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Conflict of Interest for Board Members: ‘No member ‘of the Boar i of “Adjustinent shall be permitted to act on any matter in whic he /shé. has, either directly or indirectly, any personal or finahéial intérest, The legislature has declared that o 1¢is of property within 2( of the property to be affectét! by a ‘Zoning Board proceeding have an “interest.” A Board Member who owns property within the prescribed distance should disqualify him/herself and may not sit with thé Board, : Where the applicant is related to the Board Member within the third degree of coisaiguinity, or is the spouse of a person who is so related to thé Board Member, the Board Member should disqualify him/herself. -Thus, if the’applicant is the father, mother, grandfather, or grandmothér 6f thie niember or-is an uncle, ‘aunt, brother, sister, niece or nephew, or the spouse of any such person, the Board Member is disqualified to act. A Board Member is disqualified from acting where the applicant is his/her employer, employee, or partner or is a éérporation in which the Board Member is a shareholder or has a financial interest. It is therefore apparent that it would be highly improper for any member of the governing body to represent any interested parties before such boards or even to appear before either board as a proponent or objector, and such appearance woiild undoubtedly be held to vitiate the action of the governing body if the member of the governing body who had so appeared before the Board then sat on the appeal of the same matter. The appearance of the mayor before the Board of Adjustment representing objectors in a variance case was characterized as "patently improper.”