In Kaja v. Borough of West Long Branch Planning Board, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 171, a recent unreported Appellate Division decision, the Court upheld the Borough of West Long Branch Planning Board’s (the “Board”) decision to deny the plaintiff’s application to subdivide his single-family residential property and to construct a second single-family home.

In 2021, the plaintiff applied to the Board for approval to renovate his existing residence and to subdivide his property to construct a new single-family home. The application requested several variances for certain deficiencies in lot area, lot width, and side yard setbacks. At the time of the application, plaintiff’s property was fully conforming to the zone plan. If approved, both subdivided lots would become nonconforming as undersized.

In its resolution denying the application, the Board found that the plaintiff did not satisfy the positive and negative criteria necessary to support granting bulk (c) variance relief. Specifically, the Board found that the proposed project did not advance any of the purposes enumerated in the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). Additionally, the Board concluded that the subdivision of a conforming lot into nonconforming lots would “completely destroy[] the zone plan[,]” and would only serve the personal interests of the plaintiff, rather than benefitting the community. As for the negative criteria, the Board found that the proposed lots were so materially deficient in lot area and width that there would be a substantial deviation from the requirements of the zone plan.

The trial court upheld the Board’s decision, concluding in part that the project would “in no way benefit[] the community but rather serve[] only to advance the private interest of plaintiff.” The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that plaintiff did not demonstrate the criteria necessary for a (c)(2) variance. The Court reiterated that the approval must actually benefit the community; whereas, here, it was clear that only plaintiff would derive a benefit from the subdivided lot.

Overall, when seeking approval for a (c)(2) variance, the proposed application must advance the purposes of the MLUL and present a better zoning alternative such that the public will benefit rather than the individual applicant alone.