Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

1 SHIPYARD ASSOCIATES, L.P. v. HOBOKEN PLANNING BOARD -- rank: 1000

... of its application within the statutory timeframe set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61, resulted in its automatic approval pursuant to that section. 4 ... 55D-10(a); N.J.S.A. 40:55D-22; N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61. Indeed, multiple letters from Shipyard's attorney put the Board ... operation of law when the statutory period set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61 expired. "[F]ailure of the planning board to act within the period prescribed shall constitute approval of the application. . . ." N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61 (emphasis added). At that point, Shipyard obtained the vested rights ... – N.J.S.A. 40:55D-22(a) and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61 – represent the Legislature's considered policy judgment that land ... application on the merits would result in automatic approval under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61. 5 The County Board has limited jurisdiction to review ...

docket:	a4504-14
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2017-08-02
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	38629

2 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/supreme/a-83-84-85-18.opn.html -- rank: 899

... Shipyard filed suit seeking automatic approval of its application under N.J.S.A. 40:55D- 61, a provision of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), based ... statutory period compel[led] the enforcement of automatic approval” under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61, a provision of the MLUL. The judge entered a corresponding ...

docket:
court:	NJ Superior Court Law/Chancery Division
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	63444

3 Amerada Hess Corporation n/k/a Hess Corporation v. Burlington County Planning Board -- rank: 849

... 48(c); N.J.S.A. 40:55D-50(b); N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61; N.J.S.A. 40:55D-67(a); N.J ...

docket:	a-41-07
court:
decided:	2008-07-16
status:
citation:	195 N.J. 616
Document Size:	109343

4 JOHN M. CARBONE v. BOROUGH OF NORTH HALEDON -- rank: 814

... the plaintiffs' properties, we held that personal notice pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61.2 was unnecessary: [T]he rezoning of plaintiffs' properties was ... general reexamination of the master plan by the planning board." N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61.2. In this regard, we do not necessarily agree that ...

docket:	a3744-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2013-09-30
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	30488

5 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/trial/l-416-09.opn.html -- rank: 725

... County describing the two separate lots thereby creating the subdivision. N.J.S.A . 40:55D-61 provides: Whenever an application for approval of a subdivision plat ...

docket:
court:
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	34369

6 BEAZER HOMES CORPORATION v. TOWNSHIP OF EAST GREENWICH and EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD -- rank: 625

... the Board had 120 days to make a decision. See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61 (providing that failure of a planning board to act within ...

docket:	A1962-06
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2008-06-05
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	36509

7 DONALD W. JOHNSON v. OCEAN CITY PLANNING BOARD -- rank: 548

... Johnsons). The judge strictly construed the time limits set in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61. She concluded that the Board engaged in "intentional municipal inaction ...

docket:	a5534-06
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-11-03
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	16620

8 DONALD W. JOHNSON v. OCEAN CITY PLANNING BOARD -- rank: 548

... Johnsons). The judge strictly construed the time limits set in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61. She concluded that the Board engaged in "intentional municipal inaction ...

docket:	a5505-06
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-11-03
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	16622

9 IN THE CONSOLIDATED MATTERS OF MERCERVILLE CENTER MADISON CENTER and JERSEY SHORE v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES -- rank: 405

... within seven days or any other fixed time period. Cf. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61 and -76c (providing under the Municipal Land Use Act that ...

docket:	a5455-09
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-11-04
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	24075