GREENBLATT v. CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS, A-2813-13T4. (2015)
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey
Number: innjco20150223223
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2015
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. After constructing a cinder block retaining wall and leasing vacant space within their North Plainfield premises, plaintiffs Martha and Martin Greenblatt were confronted with borough opposition for failure to obtain permits. Following a hearing, the Construction Board of Appeals rendered a written decision on November 27, 2012, upholding the borough's imposition of penalties and permit denial. Plaintiffs then filed
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM. After constructing a cinder block retaining wall and leasing vacant space within their North Plainfield premises, plaintiffs Martha and Martin Greenblatt were confronted with borough opposition for failure to obtain permits. Following a hearing, the Construction Board of Appeals rendered a written decision on November 27, 2012, upholding the borough's imposition of penalties and permit denial. Plaintiffs then filed a..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
After constructing a cinder block retaining wall and leasing vacant space within their North Plainfield premises, plaintiffs Martha and Martin Greenblatt were confronted with borough opposition for failure to obtain permits. Following a hearing, the Construction Board of Appeals rendered a written decision on November 27, 2012, upholding the borough's imposition of penalties and permit denial. Plaintiffs then filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writ, which Judge Mawla dismissed for reasons stated in a written opinion.
Plaintiffs appeal, challenging the determinations that they violated the construction code by: (1) building a wall exceeding four feet in height without a permit; and (2) occupying the premise as a church without a permit or certificate of occupancy. Plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the underlying violations on appeal but argue borough officials lacked probable cause to inspect the premises, the inspection violated plaintiffs' expectation of privacy, and the cinder block wall was in actuality a fence, which does not require a permit.
Specifically, plaintiffs argue:
I. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH ITS OPINION REGARDING STANDING[]; WHERE IT CITES [UNITED STATES v. BAKER, 221 F.3d 438, 441 (3rd Cir. 2000)] WHICH PROVIDES: GENERALLY[], COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED CERTAIN FACTORS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LANDLORD "(a) HAS ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY[;] (b)[] STAYED THERE; (c)[] MAINTAINED PERSONAL ITEMS THERE[;] (d) HAD IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS; OR (f)FREQUENTLY USED THE PROPERTY.
II. THE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AS ITS OPINION DOCUMENT STATES THE FOLLOWING[:] "HERE THE BOROUGH FIRE OFFICIAL AND THE SUBCODE OFFICIAL WERE AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE TO BE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT NOTICE TO INSPECT THE PREMISES FOR SAFETY PURPOSES. THIS IS ESPECIALLY WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS OBSERVED FROM THE OUTSIDE, TO HAVE A HOUSE OF WORSHIP."
III. THE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY MAKING LAW; WHERE THE OPINION OF THE COURT AT PAGE 11 STATES "THE CAVEAT TO THIS RULE IS THAT A PERMIT IS REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF HEIGHT IF IT [A]FFECTS WATER RUN OFF THEREBY IMPAIRING THE FOUNDATION OF OTHER BUILDINGS.
IV. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION REGARDING ITS OPINION WHICH STATED "REGARD-LESS OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS OCCUPIED THE PREMISES THERE IS NO MANIFESTATION OF THE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY[.]"
V. THE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHERE ITS OPINION STATES; WITHOUT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD "PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE EXIST, NAMELY THE PROPERTY WAS NOT ONLY LEFT UNLOCKED BUT THE DOOR TO THE CHURCH WAS LEFT OPEN LEADING TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE VIOLATION.["]
VI. THE COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD OF APPEALS WHEN IT LEARNED THAT PLAINTIFFS MOVED FOR A REHEARING[.]
VII. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS CITED IN THE COMPLAINT[.]
VIII. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ADDING ADDITIONAL WORDING TO THE STATUTE IMPACTING THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT[.]
IX. THE LOWER COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS IN ITS ORDER[.]
X. THE LOWER COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ITS FAILURE TO FOLLOW ITS CITATION OF LAW[.]
We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). After carefully reviewing the transcript and evidence presented at the board hearing, in addition to conducting his own hearing, Judge Mawla issued a detailed written opinion finding sufficient, credible evidence to support the board's decision. See Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995). We find no reason to disturb the judge's well-reasoned determinations.
Affirmed.
Source: Leagle
