Last week the members of the West Long Branch Zoning Board of Adjust-ment set out to fail.
That may seem like a crazy notion, but there really is no other explanation for the board’s attempt to vote on an application without allowing objectors to testify, particularly when you consider that the board was voting on the most serious and contentious matter it considers — a use variance.
Under state law, receiving a use variance, that is, building something not permitted in a given zone, is supposed to require an applicant to show special reasons why his plan should be approved.
Such reasons might include the construction of something judged to be an "inherently beneficial use" that the town has not zoned for, or that, for reasons clearly demonstrated, the property is uniquely unsuited to be used in line with the purposes permitted in the zone where it lies.
The state has purposely set the bar for receiving such a variance exceptionally high.
Granting such a variance is not supposed to be something the board does cavalierly.
And, of course, no matter what the variance being sought might be for, the zoning board is legally bound to allow any objectors to the proposal to voice their concerns, something it took a significant amount of time for the board to agree to do last week.
As attorneys for the objectors — and the panel’s own legal counsel told the board — failing to hear objectors would virtually guarantee that an appeal of the decision would overturn it.
This kind of behavior from a board that has legal power similar to that of a judge is troubling. The members of the board need to ask themselves if they are prepared to fulfill the obligation they have undertaken; if not they should step down.
It is not unusual for a zoning board’s decisions to be appealed and making decisions in haste almost ensures it.