JOSEPH SIGISMONDI VS. CITY OF VENTOR PLANNING BOARD (L-2652-17, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2581-18T3
JOSEPH SIGISMONDI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF VENTNOR
PLANNING BOARD,
Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________
Argued December 11, 2019 – Decided December 20, 2019
Before Judges Haas and Enright.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L-2652-17.
Joseph Sigismondi, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Elias T. Manos argued the cause for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Joseph Sigismondi appeals from an order which affirmed the
denial of variance relief by defendant City of Ventnor Planning Board (Board).
We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in the comprehensive oral
opinion of Judge John C. Porto on January 4, 2019.
Plaintiff owns a single-family home in Ventnor City. As the owner of the
property, he constructed a deck on the side and front of his home without
obtaining any permits. The deck was built with a zero-foot side yard setback
directly against the garage on the neighboring property. It also extended across
the front property line into Ventnor City's right-of-way by 2.66 feet and had a
rear yard setback of .23 feet. 1 The deck was about fourteen inches high.
In June 2017, plaintiff filed an application with the Board seeking
variances for the deck. The Board denied his application on November 9, 2017.
As the Board noted in its resolution, the zoning ordinance requires a front yard
setback of seven feet, and a side yard setback of four feet, yet plaintiff sought
setbacks of "zero and zero," respectively. Plaintiff also requested a rear yard
setback of .23 feet, notwithstanding the zoning ordinance requirement that there
be a rear yard setback of six feet.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, seeking a reversal
of the Board's decision. Judge Porto upheld the Board's denial of the variances.
1
Plaintiff's counsel represented to Judge Porto that at the time of the Board
hearing, plaintiff had agreed to remove the area of the deck involving the right-
of-way.
A-2581-18T3
2
As the judge noted in his oral opinion, the Board found the relief sought by
plaintiff did not advance any of the purposes of the zoning set forth in N.J.S.A.
40:55D-2 and there was no benefit to granting the relief. Judge Porto also
upheld the Board's determination that granting the requested variance relief
would cause a substantial detriment to the public good and would impair the
intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Additionally, the
judge affirmed the Board's finding that plaintiff's deck would "impede
circulation" around the property, that it would present property maintenance
issues to the neighboring owner, and provide no benefit other than to the
plaintiff. Lastly, the judge noted plaintiff had not pursued a variance based on
hardship.
We review a zoning board's decision using the same standard as the trial
court, Cohen v. Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Rumson, 396 N.J. Super.
608, 614-15 (App. Div. 2007), and, like the trial court, our review is limited.
Smart SMR of N.Y., Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn Bd. of Adjustment, 152 N.J.
309, 327 (1998). We give deference to a zoning board's decision and will only
reverse if the decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Kane
Properties, LLC v. City of Hoboken, 214 N.J. 199, 229 (2013). However, where
the issue on appeal involves a purely legal question, we afford no special
A-2581-18T3
3
deference to the trial court's or the zoning board's decision. D. Lobi Enters.,
Inc. v. Planning/Zoning Bd. of the Borough of Sea Bright, 408 N.J. Super. 345,
351-52 (App. Div. 2009). Still, we may not substitute our judgment for that of
the municipal body. Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment, 45 N.J. 268, 296-97 (1965).
As Justice Long emphasized in Jock v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment:
In the final analysis . . . public bodies, because of their
peculiar knowledge of local conditions, must be
allowed wide latitude in their delegated discretion. The
proper scope of judicial review is not to suggest a
decision that may be better than the one made by the
board, but to determine whether the board could
reasonably have reached its decision on the record.
[184 N.J. 562, 597 (2004) (citations omitted).]
"A court should sustain a local zoning board's determination to grant a
zoning variance if that board's decision comports with the statutory criteria and
is founded on adequate evidence [in the record.]" Burbridge v. Mine Hill, 117
N.J. 376 (1990). Yet, we give even greater deference to a planning board's
decision to deny a variance. Nextel of New York, Inc. v. Borough of Englewood
Cliffs Bd. of Adjustment, 361 N.J. Super. 22, 38 (App. Div. 2003) (citing
Northeast Towers, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment for W. Paterson, 327 N.J.
Super. 476, 494 (App. Div. 2000)); Med. Ctr. at Princeton v. Twp. of Princeton
Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 343 N.J. Super. 177, 199 (App. Div. 2001). A person
A-2581-18T3
4
challenging a denied variance has a "heavier burden . . . to prove that the
evidence before the board was 'overwhelmingly in favor of the applicant.'"
Nextel of New York, Inc., 361 N.J. Super. at 38 (quoting Northeast Towers, 327
N.J. Super. at 494).
Guided by these principles, we discern no reason to disturb the decisions
of the trial court or the Board, and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed
in Judge Porto's cogent oral opinion.
Plaintiff's remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant further
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-2581-18T3
5