Daily Development for Thursday, September 27, 2007 by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr. Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law UMKC School of Law Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin Kansas City, Missouri dirt@umkc.edu ZONING; LICENSES: Restaurants obtaining of an entertainment license does not amount to an amendment of the zoning classification of the property from restaurant to nightclub use. Such zoning changes are subject to the full set of land use procedures applicable to the municipality, and cannot be short circuited by the permit process. Nouhan v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Clifton, 392 N.J. Super. 283, 920 A.2d 700 (App. Div, 2007); April 19, 2007. A group of residents sued a zoning board over its interpretation and enforcement of a zoning ordinance and its grant of a special exception to allow a restaurant to operate as a nightclub in the evening. The restaurant was authorized to operate as a restaurant as under to operate with a parking area that was too small for its capacity. The permit required that the applicant maintain a license for additional parking at a neighboring business's property. Some years after obtaining this permit, the restaurant began operating a discotheque-nightclub at night, after its normal restaurant operating hours. It purported to be operating under the authority of an entertainment license granted to it by the municipality. The nightclub business attracted a substantially greater numbers of patrons than the restaurant business drew, and the number of existing parking spaces was inadequate for the nighttime business. The neighboring residents perceived this to be a zoning violation and asked a zoning officer to enforce the violation. The officer refused to do so, having concluded that the nightclub use was consistent with the conditional use permit for a restaurant. The residents brought suit challenging the agency's affirmation of the restaurant's operation as a nightclub based on its entertainment license. The lower court noted that a municipality has the statutory authority to issue entertainment licenses to restaurants, and that such a license can be read as part of an overall zoning ordinance that allows for restaurant operation. The court commented, as had the zoning official in testimony that the neighbors fight was with the City over the entertainment license as it was this license, and not the restaurant zoning, that caused their problem. On appeal, the Appellate Division held that the nightclub operation was not a restaurant and had not been blessed as a restaurant under the zoning ordinance simply because it had received an entertainment permit. A municipality may adopt a zoning ordinance regulating land use only after the land use and housing elements of its master plan have been approved by the planning board. The board has to approve all zoning proposals and notices of amendments to any prior ordinances. Ordinance interpretation is also the exclusive exercise of land use boards. Thus, the business license process by which the restaurant had obtained an entertainment permit was not part of the land use process and did not amend the zoning classification of the property, or the limits that it imposed. The regulation of land and of businesses, the Court remarked, should be two separate spheres of municipal regulation. Therefore, the restaurant's discotheque operation was not a permitted use of the restaurant unless it was permitted under the zoning ordinance or by way of a variance. Here, the municipality's zoning ordinance specifically did not make discotheques a permitted use in every zoning district. The special exception originally granted to the restaurant was only to authorize expanded seating for the restaurant; it did not authorize a discotheque or related activities for the space. Comment: This outcome seems so logical that it is difficult to understand why both the zoning officer and the lower court had different views. Most states, and especially New Jersey, have elaborate land use planning legislation, both state and local, and land use decisions are based upon a multi-layered analysis that is unrelated to whether a business license ought to issue. It does seem to the editor, however, that a municipality ought not to issue a business license where the intended use is inconsistent with zoning. But even if that rule were to apply (as it might have here), the full zoning process of the municipality ought not to be estopped by the judgment of the business license issuer, even if the issuer is the mayor and city counsel. 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/ . ----- 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