Dunkin Donuts Outdated Court Decision Impedes Community

Open Letter to Parsippany Planning and Zoning Board of Adjustments
Dunkin Donuts Case, outdated, flawed, possibly corrupt.

The Dunkin Donut Threat has fooled US all for far too long. Over the years this outdated, flawed and possibly corrupt “appellate, lower court decision” has been used to kowtow and subject local planning boards to corporate developers’ whims and ways. As if life exists in parts and not wholes, in some developers fantasy of life in a vacuum of their domination.
This outdated obstacle to community and environmental health and wellbeing is known as Dunkin’ Donuts of N.J., Inc. v. Township of N. Brunswick Planning Bd., 193 N.J. Super. 513, 515 (App. Div. 1984)
Corporate developers and their associated interest still routinely use this 37-year-old lower court decision. The Main issue being that the developers only concern is and remains ingress and egress on the development site; simply getting on and off a development, with no regards to impacts on the community, with traffic. (In 1984 even issues such as drainage did not have to be up to the highest standards)

Traffic studies seems to always agree any project will not cause significant impacts from any such individual or collective sites along the ways of ingress and egress. Other factors such as air pollution, litter, and quality of life has lead to landscapes overdeveloped and many now abandoned due to the speculation factor, rather than actual need; of all too many of one type of development, office space for example, and the resulting competition for locations and sustainability or longevity these market driven fantasies can actually bring to any location.

Morris County has an Failed Rating for Air Quality mainly due to traffic
Bottom line is despite the Municipal Land Use Law enacted this 37 year old ruling has effectively tied local planning boards’ hands at preventing development that will have a disastrous effect on local traffic; and now other environmental and ecological impacts; clean air, water quality, litter, noise. This flawed decision that favors short term work and economies that promote waste and sprawl has never been challenged in the Supreme Court.
In short this flawed subversion of the MLUL disallows any other relevant facts or information that may be reasonably used to make a informed determination in favor of the community. Even MLUL (Municipal Land Use Law) is flawed in it’s lack of ecological scientific terminology.; and how can it fail to supersede arguments based only on ingress and egress or actual need?

However, the Supreme Court has not decided this issue
This issue has been heard in the Appellate Division in dozens of cases, although the primary case cited for this proposition is Dunkin’ Donuts of N.J., Inc. v. Township of N. Brunswick Planning Bd., 193 N.J. Super. 513, 515 (App. Div. 1984), a more than thirty-seven year old case, with the Appellate Division determining that local municipal planning boards do not have this authority. However, the Supreme Court has not decided this issue. As further explained, granting certification will further the interests of justice by clarifying this important issue which will have an impact on all local planning board decisions.

[1] The Appellate Division did reverse the Trial Court’s Judgment solely on the Planning Board’s denial of a sign variance.

Write the Governor and demand He and Municipal officials everywhere look into taking this flawed legal decision to the Supreme Court.

Sincerely