Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/31/2013 - Special

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 20 order or decision). Here, the court found that the Residents' action was "grounded on the [Borough's] failure to respond to or act upon their numerous complaints of alleged zoning violates by the Driftwood." "If true, [those] allegations" of a history of municipal inaction rendered the Residents "without a realistic alternative form of administrative relief," said the court. The court further explained that in rare cases, judicial intervention would be warranted only when: 1) the party seeking relief shows there has been a clear violation of a mu- nicipal ordinance that has especially affected him or her; (2) appropriate municipal action was not taken despite the matter having been duly and sufficiently brought to the attention of the supervising official charged with the public duty of enforcing the ordinance; and (3) the party seeking judicial relief shows the unavailability of an adequate, realistic alterna- tive form of relief." The court applied those standards to the case at hand, and found they were met —thus warranting judicial intervention. Accordingly, the court allowed the Residents' mandamus action despite any failure to obtain administrative relief (which, it found, was not possible to obtain given the Borough's "negligent indifference" and "willful disregard" of the Residents' complaints). The court further held that, although the Residents' action was not brought within 45 days of the complained of zoning violations, the cir- cumstances of the case warranted an enlargement of time restrictions under Rule 4:69-6(a). The court explained that, under Rule 4:69-6(c), a court may enlarge the time restrictions in Rule 4:69-6(a) "where it is manifest that the interest of justice so requires." The court acknowledged that the cir- cumstances of the case did not fit under "traditional categories" where such enlargement has been allowed (i.e., novel constitutional ques- tions; informal or ex parte determinations of legal questions by administrative officials; and important public interests"). Nevertheless, the court determined that this was a case where the circumstances war- ranted an enlargement of time under Rule 4:69-6(c): Here the facts "raised questions `concerning both the vindication of [the Residents'] private property rights and the important public interest in ensuring that public officials perform their official duties diligently and with rea- sonable dispatch.' " The court reversed the trial court's order granting the Borough's mo- tion for summary judgment, and remanded the matter "for such further proceedings as may be warranted." See also: Garrott v. Teaneck Tryon Co., 11 N.J. 294, 94 A.2d 332, 35 A.L.R.2d 1125 (1953). See also: Hopewell Valley Citizens' Group, Inc. v. Berwind Property Group Development Co., L.P., 204 N.J. 569, 10 A.3d 211 (2011). ©2012 Thomson Reuters 11