Daily Development for Friday, October 19, 2007 by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr. Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law UMKC School of Law Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Kansas City, Missouri dirt@umkc.edu The Reporter here was Ira Meislik of New Jersey ZONING; PROCEDURE; NOTICE: Where notice of a proposed change to a zoning ordinance must be sent to affected property owners if the amendment proposes to change the "classification" or boundaries of a zoning district, the term "classification," unless otherwise defined, includes changes that could fundamentally alter the character of a zoning district, including the creation of subzones with differing bulk and density requirements. Robert James Pacilli Homes, L.L.C. v. Township of Woolwich, 394 N.J. Super. 319, 928 A.2d 412 (App. Div. 2007) A developer sued a municipality for failing to give it proper personal statutory notice when it amended an ordinance to alter the density and bulk standards for residential zones. The amendment listed development preferences for new subdivisions in designated residential zones, but did not alter the uses in those zones. The municipality did not send out notices by certified mail, as would be the statutory process if notice was required, prior to the first reading of the amendment. A public hearing was held for the second reading. The amendment was then referred to the planning board, and then passed by the municipality. The developer had two subdivision applications pending at the time of the amendment's adoption. In response to the developer's claim that the municipality failed to give proper notice of the amendment, the municipality answered that notice was not required because the amendment did not change the permissible uses under the ordinance. The lower court carefully analyzed the amendment to determine if it changed the classification of the ordinance. It found that the amendment created subzones within the residential districts. Each of these subzones had differing bulk and density requirements. The lower court found that the scope of the changes was significant, and therefore the notice actually given was inconsistent with due process requirements. As a result, it ruled the ordinance invalid. On appeal, the municipality argued that its notice complied with all statutory requirements. The statute required notice to be given for any amendment proposing to change the "classification" or boundaries of a zoning district. The Appellate Division noted that the term: "classification" was not defined within the statute and thus required construction. It found that "classification" was usually synonymous with the broad general uses permitted in an area, as well as with sub-categories. The Court held that a change in a broad category, as well as in any sub-category, could fundamentally alter the character of a zoning district. It cited prior cases where notice had been needed after a similar amendment to bulk and density requirements within a zone because those could result in a substantive change to future development in the zoning area. This necessitated notice to those who could be affected. The municipality argued that a notice requirement dependent on the substantiality of the change introduces an element of uncertainty into the municipal planning and zoning process. The Court disagreed, noting that the test was not based on the number of changes, but was based on the substance of the changes. Because, in this case, the Court found that the municipality was required to provide notice under the statute and did not, it invalidated the ordinance. Comment: Obviously this could be a very useful case to buy time, which often is an extremely useful commodity in a land use process. Put it somewhere where you'll find it when you need it. Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA. Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into account in evaluating confidentiality issues. ABOUT DIRT: DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals. Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day. Daily Developments are posted every work day. To subscribe, send the message subscribe Dirt [your name] to listserv@listserv.umkc.edu To cancel your subscription, send the message signoff DIRT to the address: listserv@listserv.umkc.edu for information on other commands, send the message Help to the listserv address. DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service more valuable, it is named BrokerDIRT. But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions. To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name] to listserv@listserv.umkc.edu To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message signoff BrokerDIRT to the address: listserv@listserv.umkc.edu DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants permission for copying or distribution of Daily Developments for educational purposes, including professional continuing education, provided that no charge is imposed for such distribution and that appropriate credit is given to Professor Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors. DIRT has a WebPage at: https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/ ----- < BR>To be removed from this mailing list, please go to <https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D http://listserv.umkc.edu/listserv/wa.exe?SUBED1=3DBROKERDIRT%26A=3D1& gt; or send an email message to the address listserv@listserv.umkc.edu, with the text SIGNOFF BROKERDIRT in the body of the message. Problems or questions should be directed to manager@listserv.umkc.edu. smxk2@UMKC.EDU