On August 17, 2026, New Jersey’s Appellate Division issued an important decision for property owners and businesses seeking zoning variances in the Garden State. In American Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. Edison Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, the court reversed a trial court order that had upheld the Board’s denial of a digital billboard application—not because the Board was wrong on the merits, but because it failed to provide the detailed factual findings and legal analysis required by New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law.
This unpublished opinion does not set binding precedent under New Jersey Court Rule 1:36-3, but it offers a valuable reminder to municipal boards and applicants alike: procedural compliance matters, and decisions must be supported by more than general conclusions.
What Happened in Edison Township?
American Outdoor Advertising, LLC (AOA) applied to the Edison Township Zoning Board of Adjustment in March 2022 for approval to install a large digital billboard on leased industrial property along the New Jersey Turnpike. The proposed billboard would stand 100 feet tall, display 672 square feet of LED advertising on each of two faces, and change messages every eight seconds. Because the project exceeded local zoning limits on sign height, size, setbacks, and configuration, AOA needed multiple variances—including a use variance for height under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(6) and several bulk variances under subsection (c).
The Board held four public hearings between September 2022 and February 2023. AOA presented expert testimony from engineers, a traffic safety specialist, a lighting consultant, and a professional planner, all supporting the application. Neighbors and an opposing planner raised concerns about visual impact, lighting effects on nearby homes, and compatibility with the township’s zoning scheme. At the Board’s request, AOA considered conditions such as reducing the billboard’s height, converting it to a static display, turning it off at night, or eliminating one of the two sign faces. AOA declined all suggested modifications.
At the close of the February 2023 hearing, the Board voted unanimously to deny the application, concluding that AOA had “not met all the negative and positive criteria to grant variances requested.” The Board memorialized its decision in an August 2023 resolution that summarized witness testimony but provided only general statements: the proposal would cause “substantial detriment to the zone plan” and AOA had offered “unconvincing [and] conflicted testimony.” The resolution did not distinguish between the different types of variances sought or apply the specific legal tests required under New Jersey law.
AOA challenged the denial in Superior Court. The trial court affirmed, holding that while certain comments by the Board’s then-chair were inappropriate, they did not taint the overall proceedings, and that AOA had failed to prove the positive criteria for its height variance.
The NJ Appellate Division’s Ruling
The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the matter for a new determination by the Board.
The court identified two significant problems. First, at the very start of the initial hearing in September 2022, Board Chair Rosemary Feterik announced that the Board would not approve AOA’s proposed eight-second message flip time, stating emphatically, “this [B]oard is not going to give you [two] seconds.” Although Feterik did not participate in the final vote (the Board reorganized in January 2023 with a new chair), the court found her prejudgment created “an objectively reasonable belief” that the hearing was unfair, especially because flip time remained a disputed issue throughout the proceedings.
Second—and more fundamentally—the court held that the Board’s resolution failed to comply with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(g), which requires municipal land use agencies to include specific “findings of fact and conclusions based thereon” in every decision. The resolution lacked any analysis of the four-step balancing procedure that New Jersey law requires when evaluating variance applications under the positive and negative criteria set out in Sica v. Board of Adjustment. Instead, the Board issued a conclusory denial, stating only that AOA had not satisfied “all the negative and positive criteria” without distinguishing between the height variance and the bulk variances or grounding its decision in qualified expert testimony.
The Appellate Division emphasized that while a zoning board may reject an applicant’s expert testimony, it must do so based on “an identified basis, such as reliance on contrary expert testimony,” not on “bare allegations or unsubstantiated beliefs.” Here, the Board’s resolution relied primarily on concerns voiced by board members and a single objecting resident rather than on substantiated expert analysis, rendering the denial “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.”
The court also noted that the trial court improperly conducted its own factual analysis rather than requiring the Board to fulfill its statutory duty.
What This Means for New Jersey Property Owners and Boards
This decision reinforces several key principles for anyone involved in New Jersey zoning matters:
Boards must provide detailed written findings.
A zoning board cannot simply vote “yes” or “no” and cite the statute. It must explain why—identifying the facts it relied on, the weight it gave to expert testimony, and how those facts connect to the legal standards under the Municipal Land Use Law.
Prejudgment undermines fairness.
Board members should avoid making definitive statements about how they will vote before all the evidence is in. Even if the member does not cast the final vote, their influence during hearings can create an appearance of bias that may warrant reversal.
Expert testimony matters
—but so does rebuttal. While applicants often rely on professional planners, engineers, and consultants, boards may reject that testimony if they have credible, substantiated contrary evidence. Unsubstantiated concerns from neighbors or board members alone will not suffice.
Remand allows a second chance.
Because the Appellate Division found the Board’s process deficient rather than its ultimate conclusion necessarily wrong, the matter goes back for the Board to reconsider the application on the existing record, issue proper findings, and take a new vote. The court expressed no opinion on whether the variance should be granted.
Looking Ahead
The case now returns to the Edison Township Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Board will review the full hearing record, apply the legal standards required under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70 and the Sica framework, and issue a new resolution with detailed factual findings and legal conclusions. If that resolution is again challenged, a different trial judge will hear the matter.
For New Jersey municipalities, this decision is a reminder that procedural rigor protects both applicants and the public. For property owners and developers, it underscores the importance of building a strong evidentiary record and holding boards accountable to their statutory obligations.
*This article discusses an unpublished New Jersey Appellate Division opinion that does not constitute binding precedent under New Jersey Court Rule 1:36-3. It is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.*
