Zoning Boards Are Not Free to Disregard Prior Rulings Where Property Conditions Remain Unchanged
In a recent unpublished decision, the Appellate Division again confirmed that a zoning board may not reverse course without justification once it has made findings regarding a specific property.
In Oster v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Middletown (Docket No. A-0037-17T3, decided January 11, 2019), the applicant sought and obtained a hardship variance from the Zoning Board (the “Board”) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(1). The variance, which was obtained in 2009, permitted construction of an underground storage area and above-ground conservatory within the side yard setback. The Board concluded that a variance was warranted because of the construction difficulties posed by the property’s unique shape, irregular configuration and use as a vineyard.
In 2016, the applicant abandoned the original development plan approved by the Board and filed an application seeking a variance to build an underground storage area/garage with a peaked roof in the same location. The Board, however, disregarded its prior 2009 ruling concerning the property’s unique characteristics (even though the property’s shape and use remained unchanged) and denied the requested variance relief. The applicant subsequently challenged the decision in a prerogative writ action, but the trial court sided with the Board.
The Appellate Division reversed after finding that the Board was required to honor its prior ruling concerning the property’s unique character. The court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a zoning board from re-litigating any issue that was actually determined by it during a prior application. Consequently, the court instructed the Board to conduct further proceedings on the sole issue of whether the applicant had satisfied the other requirements for c(1) variance relief.
This decision underscores the importance of reviewing all prior land use applications and decisions when pursuing or objecting to variance relief for any given property.
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the highest court in any state.
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
As the law continues to evolve on these matters, please note that this article is current as of date and time of publication and may not reflect subsequent developments. The content and interpretation of the issues addressed herein is subject to change. Cole Schotz P.C. disclaims any and all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this publication to the fullest extent permitted by law. This is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Do not act or refrain from acting upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining legal, financial and tax advice. For further information, please do not hesitate to reach out to your firm contact or to any of the attorneys listed in this publication.
Join Our Mailing List
Stay up to date with the latest insights, events, and more
