NEW JERSEY BUSINESS AND
INDIVIDUAL SERVICES ATTORNEYS

Kelly M. Carey successfully represented the Montville Township Zoning Board of Adjustment and argued before the New Jersey Supreme Couty in Monarch Communities LLC v. Township of Montville Zoning Board of Adjustment. The decision clarifies a decades old legal standard governing inherently beneficial use applications to Land Use Boards in New Jersey.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court revised the fourth prong of the Sica balancing test, holding that applicants seeking variances for inherently beneficial uses must first demonstrate that the proposed use will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the municipality’s zone plan and zoning ordinance before weighing the projects public benefits against its potential detriments. As Ms. Carey argued, the Court also encouraged municipalities to document in detail their planning decisions concerning inherently beneficial uses during required master plan reviews so that zoning boards have that record to support their decisions in variance applications.

“The ruling changes the way every application for an inherently beneficial use variance must be presented by finally incorporating the 1997 Municipal Land Use Law Amendment into the Sica analysis. The decision also provides important guidance to municipalities on how to bolster long term planning goals within their borders,” said Carey.

Read the Law360 article “NJ Justices Revamp Test For Certain Zoning Variances” by clicking here: NJ Justices Revamp Test For Certain Zoning Variances – Law360

Highly successful defense in brain injury matter. Through the experience and persistence of our trial attorneys, our firm saved the client over $8 million after a lengthy jury trial.

Savo, Schalk, Gillespie, O’Grodnick & Fisher represented the plaintiff in a $950,000 settlement for mechanic injured by defective tool. This case involved a severe hand injury from a product was defectively designed and lacked warnings that would have prevented the injury.

Charles Schalk was lead counsel in this matter in which a matter was resolved for close to $3 million settlement for minority shareholders. This case involved minority shareholders who were oppressed by the majority shareholder.