MONTVILLE, NJ — A long-running legal battle over a proposed senior living facility on Changebridge Road changed course when the New Jersey Supreme Court sent the case back to the appellate level, setting a new legal standard for local development decisions.
Zoning Board Turns Down Development
The dispute began when a developer proposed building a 165-unit senior housing complex at 205-207 Changebridge Road in 2020, a site currently zoned for single-family homes.
Sign Up for FREE Montville Newsletter
Get local news you can trust in your inbox.
The developer wanted to build a three-story building with multiple segments on the eight-acre lot located near the Municipal Building and in front of some of the units of the Meadows condominium complex. In 2019, , which did not happen.
Although senior living facilities are legally recognized as inherently beneficial to communities, the township Zoning Board denied the variance in 2021, after public hearings held on seven dates. The board pointed to concerns over density, traffic, strain on emergency services and the proposal’s conflict with local planning goals.
Lower courts previously overturned the Zoning Board's denial, ruling in favor of the developer. However, the state Supreme Court ruled that lower courts must re-evaluate the case under an updated rule: even when a project is clearly good for the community, developers cannot completely bypass a town's master zoning plan.
The Ruling Explained
The state high court clarified how towns must weigh special development requests:
Because the previous courts did not use this exact standard, the Supreme Court sent the case back for a new review.
What Happens Next
Local Ramifications of the Two Developments on Affordable Housing
At the July 21 Township Committee meeting, Township Attorney Fred Semrau said the decision was good but doesn’t change the past.
“How does that affect us at this point?” he said. “I think going forward it does, but from where we came from, it doesn't change the decisions that were made, and it only, in some ways, makes the decisions that much more ingrained and correct.”
He explained that both the Diversified/Brookside development near 287 and the Monarch development on Changebridge were not in the town’s original affordable housing plans sent to the state (see more about that), but after facing challenges from the two developers, it was necessary to include them.
“Both the projects were minimized from the standpoint of senior development, and a much lesser buildout for both projects, and it would have been impacted by this decision,” Semrau said at the meeting. “So, had the township not gone forward and included these two projects, one, the court would have taken over and made decisions, and two, these projects still would have went forward in some form of development by way of the courts, and that would have been multifamily housing at a much higher extent.”
But the township couldn’t have used the decision to its benefit because it was under a tough deadline to turn in its plan, Semrau said, and the courts can be capricious.
“So it's a real noteworthy decision, but not one that would have changed the course of history or affordable housing,” he said. “If anything, if we had hedged our bets to say, ‘Well, this decision may work out good for this particular project,’ the court still could have overstepped the law, even the law that it had established. So, I just think that's important, to make that distinction. It's a win going forward, and it just stresses the importance of sound planning. But it wouldn't have helped any municipality. It tells you what affordable housing does, and that mandate – that no law or no local law or regulation can change that mandate that we have to adhere to.”
Reactions to the Decision
Deputy Mayor Matt Kayne said at the meeting, “It's nice to see at least that the Supreme Court judges are adding a little bit of reality to what we, as suburban towns, have to deal with. So, from that standpoint, it was a very nice decision, albeit we understand the timing is such that it doesn't affect us at this moment.”
Resident Holly Cox said the ruling would have been helpful in stopping the Diversified case.
“[Diversified’s] planner quote expert misrepresented under oath a legal case law standard, stating that [Brookside] met the quote inherently beneficial standard when there was no precedent to justify classifying senior housing for active adults with world-class amenities, basically independent living for a bunch of rich, healthy people, as quote inherently beneficial,” she said during public portion of the July 21 Township Committee meeting. “This is not what the courts and legislature had in mind.”
Resident Rick Giannone said that the township should have trusted the process and waited.
“Montville's loss in the Appellate Division in that Monarch case was by way of a unanimous decision by the Appellate Division, which means there was no appeal as of right,” he said. “Your attorneys filed a petition for certification, which was granted by the New Jersey Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court grants those rarely, and only in situations where they want to affect a major change or modification in the law. And so, it should have been clear to your attorneys that the decision in Monarch was going to be a favorable decision for Montville. The New Jersey Supreme Court does not take cases up on petitions for certification where they're just going to rubber stamp what the Appellate Division did. They're going to take it up by way of certification because they're going to change what happened to the Appellate Division. Montville Township should have known well before the Diversified settlement that favorable law changes were going to come our way, and we should have hung in there a lot longer than that Diversified case.”
Semrau replied that it’s easy to Monday Morning Quarterback, but developers rely on affordable housing mandates to get their developments built.
“When you have these deadlines and these mandates, there's nothing in that decision that would have changed the decision of the governing body for the very reason that developers all had a second bite of the apple. They all came in, they did it in Diversified, and they did it with respect to the Monarch property. Didn't matter what the court said. What matters: their backup was affordable housing. If they lose these cases, they're going to come in with their high-density development anyway.”
Visit and read your exclusive Montville news at TAPinto Montville 24/7 for FREE:
Sign up to receive FREE TAPinto news in your email inbox:
Follow TAPinto on X:
Like us on Facebook:
Download the FREE TAPinto App! - to get news as it is happening.