Ten Stary Dom Partnership v. T. Brent Mauro (069079)
216 N.J. 16
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Mauro owns a 50x95 ft lot at the dead end of Willow Drive in Bay Head, with only 10.02 feet of frontage required to front a street; the zoning requires 50 feet of frontage.
- The lot otherwise conforms to all bulk and residential requirements; Mauro sought a bulk variance to permit 10.02 ft frontage.
- A variance was granted by the Planning Board in a 5-4 vote with conditions including Willow Drive improvements and other plan approvals.
- Ten Stary Dom challenged the Board’s action as arbitrary and sought prerogative writ relief; remand occurred due to a board member’s absence and the matter returned to the Board for a new vote on the same record.
- The reconstituted Board denied the variance in a 5-4 vote, focusing on drainage, wetlands designation, and safety concerns, with the Law Division then affirming without prejudice a remand.
- The Appellate Division reversed, concluding Mauro’s evidence supported both positive and negative variance criteria and that drainage could be addressed later; the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed as modified, holding Mauro entitled to the bulk variance and disallowing denial without prejudice because of res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mauro is entitled to a bulk variance from the frontage requirement | Ten Stary Dom argues Mauro failed to prove hardship | Mauro demonstrates unusual lot configuration and potential hardship | Yes; Mauro entitled to the bulk variance |
| Role of drainage in evaluating bulk variances (c)(1)/(c)(2) | Drainage data must be proven at variance stage or not considered | Drainage can be addressed as part of site planning and conditions | Drainage may be a factor but not determinative at variance stage; proper weight allocated to unique lot conditions |
| Whether denial without prejudice violated res judicata | Denial without prejudice allowed retry with same record | Remand was necessary due to record issues and fairness | Yes; denial without prejudice violated res judicata and improper on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Jock v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Wall, 184 N.J. 562 (2005) (undue hardship on property, nonutility of land use)
- Nash v. Bd. of Adjustment of Morris Twp., 96 N.J. 97 (1984) (negative criteria for bulk variances)
- Kaufmann v. Planning Bd. for Warren Twp., 110 N.J. 551 (1988) (positive criteria; balance of public good vs. detriment)
- Chirichello v. ZBA of Monmouth Beach, 78 N.J. 544 (1979) (degree of impact on zoning plan; bulk variance evaluation)
- Field v. Mayor & Council of Franklin, 190 N.J. Super. 326 (App. Div. 1983) (drainage and feasibility can influence approvals in certain contexts)
- Morris County Fair Hous. Council v. Boonton Twp., 230 N.J. Super. 345 (App. Div. 1989) (considerations of appearance in variance contexts)
- Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498 (1991) (salutary purposes of res judicata in administrative decisions)
- Bressman v. Gash, 131 N.J. 517 (1993) (finality of adjudicative agency decisions; finality principle)
- Russell v. Bd. of Adjustment of Tenafly, 31 N.J. 58 (1959) (finality and res judicata principles in variance context)