Supporting Documentation · Nov 21, 2024
Planning Report Zinnia Health West Orange NJ
4c8de9cfb4a6d8cf7ac033f26615bf0e7cf8641f3c792ad96f42392ac7a9fe65Indexed text · page 5
Show all pagesPlanning Report – Zinnia Health November 8, 2024 33 Mount Pleasant Avenue, West Orange NJ John McDonough Associates, LLC Land Use Planning · Landscape Architecture 5 101 Gibraltar Drive, Suite 1A, Morris Plains, NJ 07950 · Phone: 973.222.6011 · Fax: 973.786.6537 Legal Considerations The following excerpts from the Cox treatise on land use (2024 edition) are provided to assist the board in its consideration of the interpretation and adjudication of the application. This is by no means intended as legal opinion or legal brief since this author is not a lawyer, and thus these cases and excerpts are simply offered for reference, guidance, and assistance in helping the board render its decisions. • In L & L Clinics, Inc. v. Irvington, 189 N.J. Super. 332 (App. Div. 1983), certif. den. 94 N.J. 540 (1983), the Town of Irvington in its zoning ordinance permitted in the B-1 Primary Business District "retail outlet and personal service uses as, or similar in nature to: ... business and professional offices." Id. at 335. The plaintiff sought to put a methadone clinic in this district contending that it was a "professional office." The municipality said that it was a "hospital" and thus not permitted. The court made much of the fact that a facility of this type requires a certificate of need from the State Department of Health and that when the certificate is issued it indicates that the proposed facility is "necessary to provide required health care and service in the area to be served..." Id. at 339. The court then said "when, as in this case, the need for a health care facility has been demonstrated and a certificate of need issued, public policy supports a reasonable interpretation of a municipal zoning ordinance which permits the use," Id., pointing out that a zoning regulation like any other police power enactment must promote public health, safety, morals or general welfare. The court stated, at 340: “We reject as unreasonably rigid the exclusionary interpretation which the Town of Irvington has placed on the words `personal service uses...; similar in nature to ... professional offices' in its prime business zone in this situation”. Subsequently, the Legislature adopted N.J.S. 40:55D-66.10 permitting a municipality by ordinance to limit the placement of methadone clinics to business and commercial districts. • Hospitals are also uses which have been held
ture adopted N.J.S. 40:55D-66.10 permitting a municipality by ordinance to limit the placement of methadone clinics to business and commercial districts. • Hospitals are also uses which have been held inherently to promote the public good. Kunzler v. Hoffman, 48 N.J. 277 (1966), permitted a private hospital for the emotionally disturbed in a residential district. See also Med. Ctr. v. Princeton Tp. Zoning, 343 N.J. Super. 177, 201 (App. Div. 2001) (hospitals are indisputably inherently beneficial uses). Hospitals have been confirmed as inherently beneficial by the legislature in its definition of inherently beneficial use at N.J.S. 40:55D-4 adopted by L. 2009, c. 146, §1. • It has been held that a residential narcotic rehabilitation and treatment center under the supervision of the Commissioner of Health was a "hospital" and qualified as an "institutional use" under a local zoning ordinance. Scerbo v. Orange Bd. of Adj., 121 N.J. Super. 378 (Law Div. 1972). However, it is likely that such centers not supervised by the Commissioner will not so easily qualify as either a hospital or an inherently beneficial use. Important proofs in such cases would include substantial evidence of a community need for a detoxification facility.
File revisions (1)
- Sep 29, 2026
4c8de9cfb4a61,224,910 bytes