ROBERT J. IANUALE v. THE TOWNSHIP OF HAZLET ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

ROBERT J. IANUALE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE TOWNSHIP OF HAZLET ZONING

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,

Defendant-Respondent.

___________________________________

February 20, 2014

Submitted November 20, 2013 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Simonelli.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No.

L-1660-12.

Robert J. Ianuale, appellant pro se.

Hehl & Hehl, P.C., attorneys for respondent

(Joseph A. Paparo, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Robert J. Ianuale constructed a canopy carport on a one-family residence he owns in the Township of Hazlet without first obtaining authorization from the municipality as required by the local zoning ordinance. As suggested by the code enforcement officer, plaintiff filed an application with the Hazlet Township Zoning Board of Adjustment to ratify the construction of the structure and obtain the bulk variances required by the municipal zoning ordinance.

The Board of Adjustment held a formal meeting at which plaintiff and members of the general public were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence in support of or in opposition to the application. After considering the evidence presented by plaintiff, the Board of Adjustment denied the application, setting forth its reasons in a resolution adopted unanimously by the members present. Plaintiff thereafter filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs in the Law Division challenging the Board's action as arbitrary and capricious.

The matter came before Judge Lawrence M. Lawson after joinder of issue. After considering the arguments presented by the parties, and reviewing the record developed before the Board, Judge Lawson upheld the Board's decision and dismissed plaintiff's complaint as a matter of law, explaining the legal basis for his decision in a memorandum of opinion dated October 26, 2012. Plaintiff now appeals arguing the trial court erred by failing to invalidate the Board's decision as arbitrary and capricious. We reject plaintiff's argument and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lawson in his well-reasoned memorandum of opinion. We add only the following brief comments.

Plaintiff's property is a one-family residence erected on a 110 feet wide by 123 feet deep lot located in the R-100 residential zoning district in Hazlet. The residence has two sheds, a deck, two porches, a two-car garage, and other ancillary improvements. Section 1002 of the Hazlet Development Review Ordinance (DRO) requires permits for the construction of any structures. Plaintiff constructed the canopy carport without investigating whether there were any municipal permits required by the municipality. Plaintiff sought to ratify the carport only after he received a formal notice of violation from the Hazlet zoning officer.

Following the zoning officer's suggestion, plaintiff filed an application with the Board to obtain the required permit and concomitant front-yard and side-yard setback bulk variances. On the evidence presented, the Board found

. . . that the justifications offered by the applicant in support of the variance relief are insufficient as those justifications further only the interests of the applicant and do not advance any purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law. The Board further finds that aesthetic impacts associated with the large canopy located only five feet from the property line would be a substantial detriment to the public good and would substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance which requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for accessory structures.

The location of the carport canopy not only triggers side and front yard setback variances but also requires the installation of a second driveway and apron in further violation of the [municipal zoning code]. The applicant's current method of driving over the curb and sidewalk along Ned Drive to access the carport is not an acceptable practice. Furthermore, Mr. Ianuale's refusal to move the structure so it can be accessed from the existing driveway demonstrates an unwillingness to conform to the [municipal zoning code] where possible to avoid unnecessary variances.

Applying the standards outlined in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(1) and (2), the Board found insufficient legal grounds to warrant the relief requested. Judge Lawson came to the same conclusion.

When reviewing a decision by a trial court that has reviewed a decision by a municipal agency, we are bound by the same standards as the trial court. Fallone Props., LLC v. Bethlehem Twp. Planning Bd., 369 N.J. Super. 552, 562 (App. Div. 2004). The scope of our review is limited. "[A] decision of a zoning board may be set aside only when it is 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.'" Cell S. of N.J., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 172 N.J. 75, 81 (2002) (quoting Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1, 15 (1987)). Variance applications are "entrusted to the sound discretion of the municipal zoning board" because local citizens are "familiar with a community's characteristics and interests [and] are best equipped to assess the merits" of the application. Med. Ctr. at Princeton v. Twp. of Princeton Zoning Bd., 343 N.J. Super. 177, 198 (App. Div. 2001).

Applying this standard of review, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lawson as elucidated in his well-reasoned memorandum of opinion.