The New Jersey Appellate Division recently issued a decision in Cape Jetty, LLC v. City of Cape May, affirming the Cape May City Planning Board’s denial of Cape Jetty’s request to extend its 2019 site plan approval. Cape Jetty, LLC v. Cape May City Planning Bd., No. A-3934-23 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 3, 2025). The appellant, Cape Jetty, previously sought to revive an approval that had expired, arguing the Board acted arbitrarily and unreasonably by refusing additional time. In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division noted that many of the issues Cape Jetty attempted to re-argue had already been fully litigated in an earlier appeal, known as Cape Jetty I, and those determinations were final and binding. Cape Jetty, LLC v. Cape May City Planning Bd., No. A-1418-22 (N.J. App. Div. Apr. 8, 2024), certif. denied, 259 N.J. 322 (2024). Once the New Jersey Supreme Court declined review, those matters could not be revisited, narrowing the court’s focus solely to whether the Board lawfully exercised its discretion in denying the extension request.

On remand, the trial court’s detailed memorandum emphasized that Cape Jetty failed to meet its burden under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), which requires a developer seeking an extension to show “good cause,” including evidence of diligent efforts to obtain all necessary approvals. Cape Jetty, however, offered no testimony or proof explaining why it did not pursue building permits during the two-year approval window and instead relied exclusively on the procedural history of the application. The court described this as a critical omission because without evidence of diligence, the Board had no basis to grant relief. The Appellate Division agreed, concluding the Board was not compelled to grant an extension under these circumstances and that its memorializing resolution provided a sufficient factual foundation for the denial.

This decision reaffirms a core principle in New Jersey land use law: municipal boards are afforded broad deference when decisions are grounded in the record and consistent with statutory obligations. While Cape Jetty invoked the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision to argue against deference, the Court made clear that federal administrative law standards do not alter New Jersey’s long-standing approach to reviewing local land use determinations. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (overturned the federal Chevron doctrine, which had required courts to defer to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes). For developers, this case is a reminder that maintaining approvals requires proactive action and evidentiary support, and that courts will not disturb a board’s discretionary judgment absent clear abuse.