Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 5 <br />principle of res judicata (i.e., claim preclusion because the matter was already <br />judged). The Supreme Court of Mississippi disagreed, holding that dismissal <br />without prejudice by the federal district court did not preclude the case from being <br />brought in the chancery court. <br />Zoning Amendment/ <br />Comprehensive Plan—City fails to <br />adopt zoning changes <br />recommended by city planning <br />board upon master plan <br />reexamination <br />Property owner sues, arguing city must adopt <br />zoning changes or hold a hearing to affirm <br />zoning ordinance is to remain inconsistent with <br />the master plan <br />Citation: Myers v. Ocean City Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 2014 WL <br />7565888 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015) <br />NEW JERSEY (01/16/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />state statute (N.J.S.A. 40:55D -62(a)) addressing a governing body's author- <br />ity to adopt a zoning ordinance and the ordinance's conformity with the <br />municipality's master plan required a governing body to affirmatively act <br />in response to a master plan reexamination report. <br />The Background/Facts: John and Diane Myers (the "Myers") owned <br />two residences located in a Beach and Dune ("B & D") Zone in Ocean City <br />(the "City"). The B & D Zone prohibited residential and commercial uses. <br />However, the Myers residences were constructed before the B & D Zone <br />went into effect and were therefore nonconforming uses. <br />In 2011, the Myers sought a variance from the City's Zoning Board of <br />Adjustment ("ZBA") to enable them to expand one of their residences. The <br />ZBA denied the variance. The Myers sued. <br />Then, while the suit was pending, in 2012, the City's Planning Board <br />(the "Board") completed a master plan reexamination. As part of that ef- <br />fort, the Board recommended a proposed zoning change in the B & D Zone. <br />The Board noted that, as owners of nonconforming uses and structures, res- <br />idential property owners in the B & D Zone were unable to expand or <br />rebuild stoimr-destroyed homes without a variance. The Board proposed to <br />deem the residences in the B & D Zone as conditional uses, designed to as- <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />