Link to board agendas with application materials
https://www.fairlawn.org/government -documents
Rules for public participation at meetings
https://www.fairlawn.org/admin/dm/Public/DownloadFile/?fileid=21212
Link ro RFQ's
https://www.fairlawn.org/government-documents
PLEASE TAKE NOTE: Regular meeting of the Zoning Board- May 18, 2026
In Person 7:00 pm in the council chambers 8-01 Fair lawn Avenue, second floor
Meeting ID: 999 3193 3253 ***Asst. Zoning Officer Ann Peck will be available during the meeting at the Borough Phone #201-794-5308 for any problems or information. All Applications and materials are and have been available at Borough Hall for inspection or production if so requested. Files can be accessed at Fair Lawn.org/Department & Services/Documents Center. |
|
||||||||
Please Note:
The Fair Lawn Zoning Board will not accept petitions in support of, or objecting to, any application. Residents are encouraged to attend our open public meetings to ask questions and testify with respect to pending applications at the appropriate time. Petitions are not legally permitted, and if allowed the decision of the Board could be reversed in court. As stated in Lincoln Heights Ass'n v. Twp. of Cranford Plan. Bd., 314 N.J. Super. 366, 377, 714 A.2d 995, 1000 (Law. Div. 1998), aff'd, 321 N.J. Super. 355, 729 A.2d 50 (App. Div. 1999):
“The law concerning receipt of unsworn written petitions by municipal boards is well-defined in New Jersey. In short, the law provides that hearings on site plan and variance applications before municipal boards are quasi-judicial proceedings, and as such, the boards may consider only sworn, competent, credible testimony of individuals who are available for cross-examination. Seibert v. Dover Township Board of Adjustment, 174 N.J.Super. 548, 417 A.2d 72 (Law Div.1980); Exxon v. Bernardsville Board of Adjustment, 196 N.J.Super. 183, 481 A.2d 1172 (Law Div.1984); Cranford Land Development Ordinance, Sec. 136-4I(2). In both Seibert and Exxon, the courts reversed the boards decisions because the board admitted unsworn written petitions into evidence in violation of the public's right to cross-examine the petitioners, determine their credibility and test the merits of their objections. In those cases, the courts were also persuaded to reverse the boards' conclusions because they were otherwise unsupported by substantial credible evidence.”