1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 237 N.J.
  5. 237 N.J. Super. 118 (1989)
 

CHESTERBROOKE LTD. v. PLANNING BD.

237 N.J. Super. 118 (1989)

567 A.2d 221

CHESTERBROOKE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PLANNING BOARD OF TOWNSHIP OF CHESTER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND AUGUSTUS AND JANE KNIGHT, OBJECTORS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided September 27, 1989.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert A. Baime argued the cause for appellants (Ravin, Sarasohn, Cook, Baumgarten, Fisch & Baime, attorneys; Robert A. Baime and Sharon L. Levine, on the brief).

Dean A. Gaver argued the cause for respondent Chesterbrooke Ltd. (Hannock Weissman, attorneys; Dean A. Gaver and Susan R. Rubright, on the brief).

James R. Hillas, Jr., attorney for respondent, filed a statement in lieu of brief.

Before Judges KING, BRODY and ASHBEY.

The opinion of the court was delivered by KING, P.J.A.D.

This case presents issues concerning (1) intervention as of right for purposes of appeal under R. 4:33-1, (2) automatic approval of variance applications under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61, and (3) the power to grant so-called "flexible variances" under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2) for substantially sized tracts.

Chesterbrooke Limited Partnership (plaintiff) is the owner of a 570-acre parcel of...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases