MAURO SQUICCIARINI VS. BOROUGH OF CLOSTER (L-6202-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0822-19

Background

Plaintiff Mauro Squicciarini obtained clear title in 2014 to two landlocked lots created by a 1928 Closter Park Estates subdivision plan.
He applied for a building permit relying on a zoning "grandfather" provision (Closter Zoning §200-71(D) Section 1) that allowed improvement of lots created by that subdivision so long as improvements comply with other district regulations.
The Borough zoning officer denied the permit (landlocked, no frontage, failed bulk requirements). Squicciarini applied to the Zoning Board for variance relief; the Board held six hearings, denied his application, and suggested a (c)(2) planning variance.
Squicciarini did not appeal the Board's decision. Ten months later he filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs against the Borough, Bergen County, and adjacent Temple, seeking declaratory relief to build, removal of obstructions to Hartford Street, and monetary damages.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; the motion judge dismissed the suit (including tort and damage claims against public entities under the Tort Claims Act) as time-barred and barred by governmental immunity. Squicciarini appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff may avoid administrative appeal requirements and litigate zoning claims by filing an action in lieu of prerogative writs	Squicciarini argued his suit may proceed despite not pursuing a timely appeal	Defendants argued administrative remedies were not exhausted and statutory time limits preclude the suit	Held: Plaintiff's failure to appeal the zoning officer/Board bars the court action; cannot circumvent appeal deadlines
Timeliness under Rule 4:69 (45-day limit to challenge board determinations)	Plaintiff contended the court should hear the dispute despite Rule 4:69 limits	Defendants relied on Rule 4:69-6(b)(3) and the exhaustion doctrine; only narrow exceptions permit enlargement	Held: Action in lieu was time-barred; no exceptional circumstances justified extending the 45-day rule
Whether the Borough and County are immune from monetary damages under the Tort Claims Act (N.J.S.A. 59:2-5)	Plaintiff asserted his claims were equitable/declaratory and not subject to the TCA, so damages claims should proceed	Defendants invoked TCA immunity for permit/land-use decisionmaking and absence of timely tort notice	Held: Monetary tort claims against public entities barred by N.J.S.A. 59:2-5; plaintiff also failed to file a timely tort claim notice
Whether the 1928 subdivision "grandfather" clause made the lots nonconforming with an absolute right to build without variances	Plaintiff claimed the lots were legal building plots pre-zoning and exempt from current zoning restrictions	Defendants argued the grandfather clause conditions improvements on compliance with other district regulations; Board found proposed house failed district requirements	Held: No absolute right to build; grandfather clause requires compliance with other regulations and plaintiff should have raised this in his administrative appeal

Key Cases Cited

Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395 (standard for summary judgment)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (when cross-motions, view facts for party whose motion denied)
Sitkowski v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Borough of Lavallette, 238 N.J. Super. 255 (cannot subvert administrative appeal deadlines)
Borough of Princeton v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cnty. of Mercer, 169 N.J. 135 (limits on enlarging Rule 4:69 time limits)
Brunetti v. Borough of New Milford, 68 N.J. 576 (exhaustion of administrative remedies purpose and exceptions)
City of Atl. City v. Laezza, 80 N.J. 255 (goals of exhaustion doctrine)
Malloy v. State, 76 N.J. 515 (Tort Claims Act immunity for licensing/permit functions)
Rezem Family Assocs., LP v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103 (due process land-use claims require exhaustion)