Plaintiffs, two West Windsor Township residents, filed a complaint challenging the township's adoption of a zoning ordinance, which permitted a 5,000,000 square-foot commercial/industrial project. The eight-count complaint raised multiple claims. Counts one through five challenged the notice and adoption of the ordinance. Counts six through eight challenged the township planning board's approval of a co-defendant’s planning board preliminary and final site plan and subdivision application.
After defendants’ Rule 4:6-2(e) motion, the trial court dismissed the first five counts of plaintiffs' complaint as time-barred. After a bench trial, the trial court dismissed counts six through eight of the complaint on the merits.
On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal of counts one through five pursuant to Rule 4:69-6(a). Further, the Appellate Division concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to enlarge the filing deadline for plaintiffs, as they failed to make a sufficient showing under the public interest exception. Since plaintiffs' claims presented no justiciable issue and lacked standing, they were subject to the time bar, and not cognizable under the Declaratory Judgment Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-50 to -62. The Appellate Division concluded that the trial court did not err when it found no personal notice to plaintiffs was required, as the master plan reexamination exception to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62.1 applied.
The Appellate Division next affirmed the trial court's dismissal of counts six through eight. It concluded there was sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the trial court's conclusion that the township planning board's approval of a co-defendant's site plan was not arbitrary or capricious. Further, the Appellate Division concluded that the trial court did not err by considering the impact of vehicular traffic in its determination that the planning board's waiver approvals were not arbitrary and capricious. Finally, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly deferred to the board's well-supported findings, and affirmed its order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety.