TOWNSHIP OF MONROE VS. ANDRE LOVE (10-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2350-19

Love operates a tree-removal/landscaping business on an R3A-zoned three-acre property where tree removal is a conditional use; he processed wood into mulch using grinders that produced noise and smoke.
Township issued 25 summonses for mulch processing from Feb 2017 to Dec 2018 (plus related minor citations); municipal court found multiple violations.
In Oct 2017 the Chancery Division denied the Township’s preliminary injunction request but warned Love that continuing mulch processing without approvals would be "at his own peril."
Love obtained variances in Sept 2018 contingent on site-plan approval but did not file site-plan paperwork until Jan 2019, so violations continued while his application was pending.
The Law Division conducted a de novo review, credited the municipal judge and zoning officer over Love, affirmed the zoning violations (failure to obtain permits/site-plan approval, improper storage, missing logs), reduced aggregate fines from the municipal calculation, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Township's Argument	Love's Argument	Held
Effect of Chancery denial of preliminary injunction	Denial did not grant permission; enforcement could continue	Denial amounted to protection/permission to continue	Denial of injunctive relief was not permission; Love proceeded at his own risk and remained subject to enforcement
Applicability of MLUL provision (statute cited by Love)	Statute inapplicable to bar enforcement of zoning violations	Pending zoning application/statutory provision precludes enforcement	Statute inapplicable; pending application did not preclude enforcement
Standard of review / credibility findings on de novo review	Law Division properly reviewed de novo but may defer to municipal fact findings	Trial court improperly determined credibility and erred in de novo review	Law Division properly reviewed record de novo and permissibly credited municipal court credibility findings under the two‑court rule
Collateral estoppel	Township: doctrine does not apply	Love: prior Chancery disposition estops enforcement	Collateral estoppel inapplicable; Chancery denial was not a final dispositive determination
Excessiveness of fines	Township: reduction should not have been so large	Love: fines excessive given circumstances	Reduction of fines by Law Division was a permissible exercise of discretion and was affirmed

State v. Hannah, 448 N.J. Super. 78 (App. Div. 2016) (discusses municipal appeal de novo review and credibility assessment)
State v. Stas, 212 N.J. 37 (2012) (two-court rule and deference to factual findings in de novo municipal appeals)
State v. Oliver, 320 N.J. Super. 405 (App. Div. 1999) (application of de novo review and appellate deference)
State ex rel. Qarmout v. Cavallo, 340 N.J. Super. 365 (App. Div. 2001) (legal standard for appellate review distinguished from factual review)
State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283 (2010) (standard for appellate review of penalty determinations)