339 River Road Holdings, LLC v. Planning Board of the Borough of Edgewater

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.

`

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4133-24

LLC,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER,

Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________

Submitted May 28, 2026 – Decided July 21, 2026

Before Judges Mayer and Vanek.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-2015-24.

Florio Perrucci Steinhardt Cappelli & Tipton, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Craig P. Bossong and Eric D. Lee, of counsel and on the briefs).

Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri & Jacobs LLC, attorneys for respondent (Brian M. Chewcaskie, of counsel and on the brief; Jessica V. Henry, on the brief.

Defendant Planning Board of the Borough of Edgewater (Board) appeals

from a July 14, 2025 order that vacated a March 25, 2024 resolution (Resolution)

denying an application by plaintiff 339 River Road Holdings, LLC (RRH) for

preliminary and final site plan approval of a commercial development. RRH

appealed the Board's denial and the judge handling the appeal vacated the

Resolution and granted RRH's site plan application as of right. Because the

Board's denial was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, we reverse the July

14, 2025 order and reinstate the Resolution.

I.

We glean the salient facts from the record before the Law Division, which

rested on proofs before the Board as developed over several public hearings. On

July 28, 2023, RRH applied for preliminary and final site plan approval to

develop a one-story, commercial building with rooftop parking as a permitted

use in the Borough of Edgewater's (Borough) B-3 Waterfront Commercial

District on property located on River Road between Thompson Lane and Penny

Lane (the Site). The Site is surrounded by residential, mixed-use, and other

commercial developments.

A-4133-24 2 At the Board hearings, RRH presented testimony from its civil engineer

Alexander Lomei, architects Joseph Pikiewicz and Daniel Kaplan, and traffic

engineer Paul Going. The Board proffered testimony from its own traffic

engineer, Brian Intindola.

The testimony proffered by RRH demonstrated that the Site, formerly a

movie theater, would be redeveloped as a 161,000-square-foot retail building

with 755 parking spaces on both the ground level and the rooftop. The Site

would have one tenant, likely a discount-club retail "big box" store, including a

grocery component with a potential twenty-four-hour operation. According to

RRH's witnesses, the design complied with all applicable zoning, bulk, parking,

building, and fire code requirements. No site plan waivers were requested or

required.

The proposed rooftop parking area would feature a vestibule with four

elevators and two stairways to facilitate pedestrian access, and would be

engineered to safely support vehicles, snow, and other loads. RRH proffered

that ambulances and police vehicles could reach the rooftop, while fire trucks

would address rooftop fires using ground ladders, aided by two standpipes on

the roof. RRH's witnesses opined the rooftop parking design was code-

A-4133-24 3 compliant, and the site plan met all applicable standards for traffic circulation

and queuing.

The sole vehicular access to the Site would remain via Penny Lane and

Thompson Lane, with no direct access from county-controlled River Road.

Although the Site's vehicle circulation and access points would remain the same,

the main entrance on Penny Lane would be expanded and another driveway

would be added without changing the street's width.

A traffic impact analysis projected a significant increase in traffic, with

up to 1,027 trips on a Saturday afternoon, resulting in queuing at the

intersections of River Road with Penny Lane and Thompson Lane. During peak

periods, traffic queues could extend to and potentially block access in and out

of a neighboring development. RRH's traffic study did not consider the impact

on neighboring residents who also use Penny Lane and Thompson Lane for

ingress and egress.

RRH's traffic engineer anticipated the total average daily traffic on River

Road to be approximately 28,000 vehicles. The only mitigation for the twenty-

nine percent increase to River Road peak-time traffic would be adjustments to

traffic signal timing, which was subject to county approval. The Board's traffic

A-4133-24 4 consultant confirmed the methodology and conclusions of RRH's traffic

engineer were consistent with accepted engineering practice.

Throughout the hearings, both Board members and the public raised issues

regarding the safety and practicality of rooftop parking, including the failure to

propose pedestrian walkways, lack of fire department access, reliance on a

single point of ingress and egress, and location of the elevators. Additional

concerns focused on the limited scope of RRH's traffic study, conducted during

limited observation periods, which failed to evaluate potential hazards to

vehicles entering and exiting the Site, did not consider tractor-trailers entering

from the south, demonstrated tight queuing for right turns onto Penny Lane

followed by left turns into the parking lot, and depended on county approval for

traffic mitigation.

After the close of testimony on February 26, 2024, the Board voted

unanimously to deny the application. The Board later adopted the Resolution

memorializing its findings. The Resolution acknowledged the proposed use was

permitted under the Borough's ordinances and no variances were required, but

denied the application based on the rooftop parking design and an incomplete

traffic study. The Resolution set forth the following finding that RRH's traffic

study was incomplete:

A-4133-24 5 The Board determined and finds that it was not disputed and both the Board's traffic engineer and [RRH's] traffic engineer agreed that there will be a substantial increase in traffic to the [S]ite . . . as well as access to the [S]ite. All traffic will have to utilize either Penny Lane or Thompson Lane, both of which are local roads under the jurisdiction of the Borough. . . . As conceded by [RRH], a portion of Penny Lane and a portion of Thompson Lane are explicitly located on the subject property. Consideration of the impact to those two local roads as well as the residents and businesses that also use those roads is a [v]alid and proper consideration before the Board.

The Board finds that [RRH's] traffic engineer appeared to focus his study purely on the impacts to River Road, a [c]ounty [r]oad, and this focus was a clear attempt by [RRH] to divert the attention away from the impact said development will have on the local Edgewater roads, so that [RRH] can claim that all traffic issues created by this proposed project are within the County of Bergen's jurisdiction and therefore not to be considered by this Board. Although the Board concedes that any traffic impact to River Road and any necessary mitigation efforts on River Road are off-site and would be within the County of Bergen's jurisdiction, the impact to Penny Lane and Thompson Lane, as local, Borough . . . roads is clearly within the jurisdiction of this Board and the specific impact to the neighboring residents and businesses that also are forced to utilize those roads on a daily basis, should have been studied and included in [RRH's] traffic engineers report, which was not done.

As to the proposed rooftop parking area, the Resolution stated, "The Board

was not satisfied with [RRH's] testimony and the proposed site plan and

determined that the design of the structure, namely the rooftop parking, was not

A-4133-24 6 in conformity with the surrounding structures." The Board also referenced

concerns for pedestrian safety and emergency vehicle access to the rooftop

parking area, along with its novel design. The Board found RRH had rejected

proposed alternative designs. The Resolution set forth the Board's conclusion

as to the proposed rooftop parking area but did not articulate any standards it

applied:

As a result of [RRH's] failure to address the rooftop parking concerns, or make any requested design changes to the [a]pplication, the Board finds that the application as designed is not in conformance with the standards of the Borough of Edgewater, does not meet the necessary [sic].

RRH filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, seeking to vacate the

Resolution and requesting entry of judgment granting site plan approval. After

argument, the trial judge issued a July 14, 2025 order and written decision

vacating the Resolution, finding it arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The

judge found RRH's application was fully conforming and the Board's denial was

improperly based on off-site traffic and design preferences not supported by the

Borough's ordinance. The judge emphasized the Board's own expert did not

dispute the application's compliance with zoning, site plan, and parking

requirements. Accordingly, the judge vacated the Resolution and granted RRH's

A-4133-24 7 application for preliminary and final site plan approval as amended during the

Board hearings.

On appeal, the Board argues the judge erred in vacating its denial of RRH's

site plan application. It contends the Resolution was not arbitrary, capricious,

or unreasonable and was supported by substantial evidence. The Board asserts

RRH failed to provide a complete traffic analysis as required by ordinance and

the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -171.

Alternatively, the Board requests the Law Division order be vacated and the

matter remanded to the Board for it to reassess the application.

II.

We review a trial judge's decision regarding the validity of a municipal

board's determination by applying the same standard as the trial court. Jacoby

v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 442 N.J. Super. 450, 462 (App. Div. 2015) (citing

Fallone Properties, L.L.C. v. Bethlehem Twp. Plan. Bd., 369 N.J. Super. 552,

562 (App. Div. 2004)). "[C]ourts ordinarily should not disturb the discretionary

decisions of local boards that are supported by substantial evidence in the record

and reflect a correct application of the relevant principles of land use law." Lang

v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 160 N.J. 41, 58-59 (1999).

A-4133-24 8 In reviewing decisions by local boards, courts are mindful the Legislature

vested boards with discretion related to decisions reflecting the character and

level of development within their community. See Booth v. Bd. of Adjustment,

50 N.J. 302, 306 (1967). A board's decision is accorded a rebuttable

presumption of validity. Harvard Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 56 N.J.

362, 368 (1970). A board's decision "may be set aside only when it is 'arbitrary,

capricious[,] or unreasonable.'" Cell S. of N.J., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of

Adjustment, 172 N.J. 75, 81 (2002) (quoting Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1, 15

(1987)).

"[P]ublic bodies, because of their peculiar knowledge of local conditions,

must be allowed wide latitude in their delegated discretion." Jock v. Zoning Bd.

of Adjustment, 184 N.J. 562, 597 (2005). "The proper scope of judicial review

is not to suggest a decision that may be better than the one made by the board,

but to determine whether the board could reasonably have reached its decision

on the record." Ibid. (citations omitted).

Accordingly, a court may not substitute its judgment over that of the local

board absent a clear abuse of discretion. Cell S., 172 N.J. at 81-82 (citing

Medical Realty Assocs. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 228 N.J. Super. 226, 233 (App.

Div. 1988)). "Even were [the court] to harbor reservations as to the good

A-4133-24 9 judgment of a local land use agency's decision, 'there can be no judicial

declaration of invalidity in the absence of clear abuse of discretion by the public

agencies involved.'" CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Borough of Lebanon Plan. Bd., 414

N.J. Super. 563, 577 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment,

45 N.J. 268, 296-97 (1965)).

"[W]hen a party challenges a . . . board's decision through an action in lieu

of prerogative writs, the . . . board's decision is entitled to deference." Kane

Properties, LLC v. City of Hoboken, 214 N.J. 199, 229 (2013). The burden is

on the challenging party to overcome the highly deferential standard of review.

Price v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263, 284 (2013).

III.

A.

"[Planning] boards are the creatures of statute and may exercise only those

powers granted by statute." Toll Bros. v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cnty. of

Burlington, 194 N.J. 223, 242-43 (2008) (quoting William M. Cox, New Jersey

Zoning and Land Use Administration § 4-3.1 at 80 (Gann 2007)). Under the

MLUL, planning board review of a site plans is limited to determining whether

the application conforms with the municipality's zoning and site plan

ordinances. See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46; N.J.S.A. 40:55D-50; Pizzo Mantin Grp.

A-4133-24 10 v. Twp of Randolph, 137 N.J. 216, 229 (1994) (holding that municipalities must

"effectuate [the purposes of the MLUL] only by incorporating them as standards

in duly-enacted zoning and subdivision ordinances"). While planning boards

have "wide discretion to assure compliance with the objectives and requirements

of the site plan ordinance," the discretion is "circumscribed" by the reach of

applicable law. Shim v. Washington Twp. Planning Bd., 298 N.J. Super. 395,

411 (App. Div. 1997).

For a planning board to properly review a final site plan, an applicant must

provide sufficient information upon which a board can determine compliance

with the applicable provisions of the municipality's site plan and zoning

ordinances. See e.g., El Shaer v. Planning Bd., 249 N.J. Super. 323, 332 (App.

Div. 1991); W.L. Goodfellow and Co. of Turnersville, Inc. v. Washington Twp.

Planning Bd., 345 N.J. Super. 109, 116 (App. Div. 2001) ("A planning board

may . . . deny a site plan application if it lacks sufficient specificity or if an

applicant has failed to provide pertinent information sufficient to assess the

adequacy of a stormwater management plan."); Morris Cnty. Fair Hous. Council

v. Boonton Twp., 228 N.J. Super. 635, 642 (Law Div. 1988) ("[I]f an applicant

has failed to provide information pertinent to a plan, the plan may be denied on

that basis.").

A-4133-24 11 Here, RRH's traffic expert conceded he did not study the anticipated

traffic impact on Penny Lane and Thompson Lane. Because portions of Penny

Lane and Thompson Lane are within RRH's property, its failure to provide

sufficient information from which the Board could determine whether the site

plan complied with the MLUL and local ordinances was a proper basis for

denial. The MLUL and Borough ordinance permit the Board to consider the

safety implications of on-site traffic circulation and the Site's ingress and egress.

See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-51(b); Shim, 298 N.J. Super. at 411; Edgewater, N.J., Code

§ 240-166(D)(4)(a) (requiring all ingress and egress "to a public or private street

to be located to afford maximum safety to the roadway, to provide for safe and

convenient ingress and egress and to minimize conflict with the free flow of

traffic").

We are unconvinced that the Board's denial rested solely on off-site traffic

concerns outside the scope of its review. See Tennis Club Assoc. v. Planning

Bd., 262 N.J. Super. 422, 434-35 (App. Div. 1993) (citing Dunkin' Donuts of

N.J. v. N. Brunswick Twp. Planning Bd., 193 N.J. Super. 513, 515 (App. Div.

1984)) ("[S]ite plan approval for permitted uses cannot be denied by the

planning board because of off-site traffic congestion."); PRB Enters., Inc. v. So.

Brunswick Planning Bd., 205 N.J. Super. 225, 229-30 (App. Div. 1985) (citing

A-4133-24 12 Lionel's Appliance Center, Inc. v. Citta, 156 N.J. Super. 257, 269 (Law Div.

1978)) ("[S]ite plan approval cannot be denied because of the intensity of

vehicular traffic on adjoining roadways."). As noted in the Resolution, RRH's

civil engineer conceded that portions of Penny Lane and Thompson Lane lie

within the Site's boundaries—thus, the traffic impact on those portions of the

roadway was within the scope of the Board's review. See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-51(b)

(requiring site plan ordinances to provide for "[s]afe and efficient vehicular and

pedestrian circulation, parking and loading").

RRH's traffic engineer also failed to analyze tractor-trailer access from

the south and the impact of queueing on the Site's ingress and egress. "A

planning board may . . . deny a site plan application if the ingress and egress

proposed by the plan creates unsafe and inefficient vehicular circulation." Shim,

298 N.J. Super. at 411 (citing N.J.S.A. 40:55D-41(b)). The Board permissibly

denied site plan approval based on RRH's failure to provide sufficient

information for it to determine the safety of ingress and egress and the traffic

impacts on the adjacent local roadways, portions of which were concededly on

the Site.

Because the incomplete traffic study formed a predicate for the Board's

denial, RRH did not meet its burden of proving the Resolution was arbitrary,

A-4133-24 13 capricious, or unreasonable. Price, 214 N.J. at 284. Absent sufficient evidence

for the Board to assess the site plan's conformity with the MLUL and applicable

Borough ordinances, the required deference to the Board's denial warrants

reversal of the Law Division's order. See Jacoby, 442 N.J. Super. at 462.

B.

Both our decisional law and the MLUL require a planning board reviewing

a site plan application to reduce its decision to writing and set forth findings of

fact and conclusions of law sufficient to permit meaningful judicial review.

N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(g); NY SMSA, L.P. v. Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of

Weehawken, 370 N.J. Super. 319, 332-33 (App. Div. 2004). "Without such

findings of fact and conclusions of law, the reviewing court has no way of

knowing the basis for its decision." Id. at 333.

Because the Resolution failed to articulate any portion of the MLUL or

Borough ordinance the Site's proposed rooftop parking design violated, it does

not constitute a permissible basis for denial. See Pizzo, 137 N.J. at 229

(confining planning board review "within the framework of the standards

prescribed" by ordinance). However, we need not remand this issue for further

Board consideration because the denial is independently sustainable based on

RRH's incomplete traffic analysis. To the extent we have not addressed any of

A-4133-24 14 the parties' other arguments, it is because they do not merit discussion in written

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

The judgment of the Law Division is reversed and the Resolution of the

Board, denying RRH's final site plan application, is reinstated. We do not retain

jurisdiction.

A-4133-24 15