Zoning board rules 260 Park Street is in neighborhood-commercial zone despite historical map dispute

The Zoning Board of Adjustment on June 3 interpreted the township's adopted 2022 zoning map as placing 260 Park Street (block 25503, lot 18) in the NC neighborhood-commercial zone, concluding the published map 'controls for land-use review.

The ruling came after attorney Alan Tremulac, representing 260 Park Street LLC and owner Gino Danti, submitted the 2022 official zoning map and enlarged excerpts and argued the map is unambiguous and was the controlling document relied on when the planning board processed the application. Tremulac told the board, "the 2022 map is clear as can be in showing where the zone boundary line is between the NC zone and the R2 zone," and asked for a formal interpretation under the Municipal Land Use Law.

Objector counsel Justine Delveio presented a competing historical analysis, showing tax maps and planning materials dating from 1974 through 2006 and arguing that lot 18 historically lay in the R2 residential zone and that the 2022 depiction placing the lot in NC was an administrative error. Delveio asked the board to find the lot is R2, saying, "the historical data clearly shows that lot 18 was always part of the R2 zone and there is no conclusive 2022 ordinance that shows lot 18 was ever properly made part of the NC zone."

Neighbors and other members of the public offered competing views: longtime resident Claire Silata said the lot has always been residential and urged the board to follow historical records; other speakers cautioned that developers relied on the published zoning map.

Board members debated their limited legal role. Several members and the board's counsel said the board's duty was to interpret the map that was adopted by ordinance and published, not to conduct a full judicial review of historical ordinance adoption or alleged procedural errors in prior years. After discussion the board moved to interpret the 2022 zoning map as placing the subject property in the NC zone; the roll call recorded Chair Harris "yes," Mr. Church "yes," Mr. Griffith "yes," and Mr. Cruz abstaining. The board said it will adopt a resolution in two weeks, and that an aggrieved party may pursue judicial review.

The interpretation resolves the immediate zoning question for land-use review (the planning board will consider the applicant's development application under the NC zone rules), but attorneys on both sides noted that the issue may be litigated. The board cited NJSA 40:55D-70(b) during the proceeding and emphasized that challenges to ordinance adoption and broader legal questions are often matters for the courts or the governing body.

A resolution memorializing the board's interpretation is expected to be prepared and adopted at the board's next meeting. The planning-board application and any reconsideration requests referenced during public comments remain separate administrative tracks.