Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 20 <br />bring the action) of the neighboring property owners to challenge the Board's <br />decision to grant Heins the requested variances. The court held that the <br />neighbors had standing to appeal the Board's decision as persons "dissatis- <br />fied with" the variance decision. In so holding, the court said the "dissatisfied <br />with" standard under K.S.A. 12-759(f) meant the same as the "aggrieved by" <br />standard under K.S.A. 12-760. <br />Time for Proceedings —After <br />municipal officials fail to respond to <br />residents' complaints, residents bring <br />legal action <br />Residents argue they could not first exhaust <br />administrative remedies and that justice <br />required an enlargement of time restrictions <br />Citation: Mullen v. Ippolito Corp., 428 N.J. Super. 85, 50 A.3d 673 <br />(App. Div. 2012) <br />NEW JERSEY (09/10/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />mandamus relief was available to seek enforcement of zoning ordi- <br />nances where municipal officials failed to respond to complaints of <br />zoning violations, and as such, there was no exhaustion of administra- <br />tive remedies. The case also addressed whether the failure of municipal <br />officials to respond to complaints of zoning violations warranted the re- <br />laxation of time restrictions for actions in lieu of prerogative writs. <br />The Background/Facts: John Mullen and Howard Levine (the <br />"Residents") purchased their beachfront home in the Borough of Point <br />Pleasant Beach, New Jersey (the "Borough"), in 1998. The Residents' <br />residence was adjacent to the Driftwood Motel (the "Driftwood"), <br />which had operated at that location "since at least the 1960's." Both <br />properties were located in an SF-5 zoning district. That zoning district <br />only permitted single-family residences, schools, and public play- <br />grounds and parks. Because the Driftwood Motel existed at that loca- <br />tion before the Borough adopted these zoning restrictions, it was <br />considered a preexisting nonconforming use under New Jersey statu- <br />tory law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68). <br />Over the past 13 years, the Residents observed allegedly unlawful <br />expansions of the Driftwood's: snack bar by 64.5 square feet; impervi- <br />© 2012 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />