GERTRUDE WALSH VS. CITY OF CAPE MAY PLANNING BOARD(L-0434-15, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0170-16T4

Walsh owns a 12,000 sq ft residential parcel in Cape May (R-3A) and seeks to subdivide into two 6,000 sq ft lots with a (c)(2) variance from the 6,250 sq ft minimum.
The Board denied the variance, finding the proposed lots would not advance master-plan purposes and would harm neighborhood character, traffic, and flood-prone conditions.
Walsh filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs; the Law Division reversed and granted relief.
The Appellate Division vacates the Law Division’s judgment and reinstates the Board’s denial, holding the variance was not supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards.
The court emphasizes deference to a Board’s denial, proper application of the (c)(2) variance criteria, and that benefits must flow to the community, not solely to the owner.
Key evidence included testimony that the two 6,000 sq ft lots would be four percent under the minimum and that nearby zoning patterns and the master plan favored maintaining current lot configurations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s (c)(2) variance denial was supported by substantial evidence.	Walsh argues variance benefits the community and should be approved.	Board contends the variance would cause traffic, parking, and density detriments and would not harmonize with the master plan.	Yes; the Board’s denial was supported by substantial evidence.
Whether Walsh’s claim of eliminating a non-conforming guest house could justify the variance.	Walsh contends the variance would eliminate a non-conforming use (guest house).	Record lacks development of a non-conforming guest house issue; board record did not support elimination of such use.	No; the record did not properly support eliminating a non-conforming guest house.
Whether the trial court properly applied standard of review and deference to the Board.	Trial court properly reversed, applying broader deference to owner’s requested variance.	Court should defer to Board and apply substantial-evidence standard.	Appellate standard of review supports deference to the Board; the Board could have reasonably denied the variance.

Kaufmann v. Planning Bd. for Warren, 110 N.J. 551 (N.J. 1988) (c(2) variance must benefit the community, not just the owner)
Lang v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment for N. Caldwell, 160 N.J. 41 (N.J. 1999) (reconciliation with zone plan is a key inquiry; deference to board on factual determinations)
Jacoby v. Englewood Cliffs Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 442 N.J. Super. 450 (App. Div. 2015) (burden to prove positive and negative criteria; community benefits required)
Loscalzo v. Pini, 228 N.J. Super. 291 (App. Div. 1988) (community benefit must be shown for variance; not just owner’s interests)
Davis Ents., Inc. v. Karpf, 105 N.J. 476 (1987) (scope of review limited to record; substantial evidence standard)
Nextel of New York, Inc. v. Borough of Englewood Cliffs Bd. of Adjustment, 361 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2003) (deference when reviewing planning-board denial of variance)
Nuckel v. Planning Bd. of Waldwick, 208 N.J. 95 (2011) (board findings of law reviewed de novo; factual findings given deference)