A recent unreported Appellate Division decision emphasizes the detail required in zoning board resolutions.  

In that case, American Outdoor Adver., LLC v. Edison Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2977, the Edison Township Zoning Board denied a billboard company’s application for preliminary and final site plan approvals and conditional use and bulk variances to construct a digital billboard. The resolution denying the application was comprised of conclusory statements without detailed factual findings. The applicant challenged the Board’s denial, and the trial court remanded the matter to the Board, directing the Board to approve the application and the requested variances and other approvals. The trial court reasoned that the Board’s denial lacked sufficient evidentiary support and the applicant’s evidence overwhelmingly satisfied the positive and negative criteria for the variances. The trial court also noted that the ordinance establishing the standards for the L-I zone was presumptively unreasonable and invalid as a matter of law due to a lack of timely reexamination under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-89.1 and thus should not have been relied upon as the controlling standard. The Board appealed, arguing that the court should have remanded to allow it to state its findings with more particularity.

On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination that the resolution was inadequate and contained only conclusory statements untethered to any analysis or findings of fact supporting the Board’s conclusions and determination. The Court stressed that a board’s resolution must demonstrate, with reference to facts and testimony on the record, the statutory basis for its decision so that a reviewing court can understand the basis of the board’s determination. However, the Court remanded the case to allow the Board to supplement its findings of fact, credibility determinations, and analysis supporting its rejection of the applicant’s testimony. 

The Court also vacated the trial court’s determination that the ordinance was presumptively unreasonable and invalid. The Court reasoned that the statute creates only a rebuttable presumption of unreasonableness if a timely master plan reexamination is not conducted, rather than automatically rendering the ordinance invalid. The Court held that rather than depriving the Board the opportunity to address or rebut this presumption, the matter should have been remanded to the Board to properly evaluate the ordinance’s validity and its impact on the application. 

A board affirming or denying an application must ensure that the resolution memorializing its decision provides sufficient factual findings and analysis to support its decision.