NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0858-18T2
JSTAR, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRICK TOWNSHIP ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,
and RTS IV, LLC, a/k/a JOSEPH
R. PRESTIFILIPPO, JR.,
Defendants-Respondents.
_____________________________
Submitted March 23, 2020 – Decided June 4, 2020
Before Judges Rothstadt, Moynihan and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-0389-18.
R.C. Shea & Associates, PC, attorneys for appellant
(Robert C. Shea, of counsel and on the briefs; Dina M.
Vicari and Robert C. Shea II, on the briefs).
Weiner Law Group LLP, attorneys for respondent Brick
Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (Ronald D.
Cucchiaro, of counsel and on the brief; Richard
Brigliadoro, on the brief).
King Kitrick Jackson McWeeney & Wells, LLC,
attorneys for respondent RTS IV, LLC (John J. Jackson,
III, of counsel and on the brief; Jilian L. McLeer, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant RTS IV, LLC (RTS) sought preliminary and final major
subdivision approval, design waivers and variance relief from defendant Brick
Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) (collectively defendants) to
permit construction of single-family homes and ancillary improvements. The
owner of an adjacent property, plaintiff JSTAR, LLC, objected and, prior to the
completion of Board action on the application, filed a complaint in lieu of
prerogative writs alleging the Board's violations of the Open Public Meetings
Act (OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-1 to -21, rendered any Board action in 2018 void.1
Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's orders granting defendants' motions for
summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, and denying
plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and, similarly, dismissing its
complaint with prejudice.
1
Although the complaint also alleged the Board violated the Municipal Land
Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -163, plaintiff's appellate argument is limited to
the alleged OPMA violations.
A-0858-18T2
2
Plaintiff's present arguments center on the Board's failure to publish
adequate notice of its January 3, 2018 reorganization meeting and its January
17, 2018 regular meeting. In its merits brief, plaintiff contends:
POINT ONE
THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MATERIAL FACT
THAT OPMA HAS BEEN VIOLATED,
THEREFORE, [PLAINTIFF'S] COMPLAINT
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND THE
RELIEFS OUTLINED IN [PLAINTIFF'S]
COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED
BY THE TRIAL COURT.
A. [PLAINTIFF'S] COMPLAINT RELIEF
REQUESTING THAT ALL BOARD
DETERMINATIONS AND ACTIONS TAKEN
AT THE REORGANIZATION, JANUARY
17TH REGULAR MEETING AND THE
JANUARY 31ST SPECIAL MEETING, BE
VOIDED DUE TO OPMA VIOLATIONS,
SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE
TRIAL COURT.
B. [PLAINTIFF'S] COMPLAINT RELIEF
REQUESTING TO VOID THE BOARD'S
DETERMINATION TO SCHEDULE THE
JANUARY 31ST SPECIAL MEETING TO
HEAR . . . RTS['S] APPLICATION SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIAL
COURT.
C. [PLAINTIFF'S] COMPLAINT RELIEF
REQUESTING REVERSAL OF THE BOARD'S
ACTION TO ACCEPT THE BOARD
A-0858-18T2
3
ATTORNEY'S DETERMINATION THAT THE
STRICT INTENT OF THE OPMA WAS
MERELY "SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED",
WHEREIN . . . RTS['S] APPLICATION
SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED AND
REQUIRED TO RE-START, SHOULD HAVE
BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT.
D. [PLAINTIFF'S] COMPLAINT RELIEF
REQUESTING THE BOARD TO TAKE
REMEDIAL AND CURATIVE MEASURES TO
COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OPMA, FOR THE
REORGANIZATION, JANUARY 17TH
REGULAR AND JANUARY 21ST SPECIAL
MEETINGS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN
GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT.
E. [PLAINTIFF'S] COMPLAINT
REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD BE
PROHIBITED FROM CONDUCTING ANY
FUR[TH]ER MEETINGS FOR . . . RTS['S]
APPLICATION INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO FEBRUARY 20, 2018, SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIAL
COURT.
F. [PLAINTIFF'S] COMPLAINT RELIEF
REQUESTING THAT ALL TESTIMONY AND
EXHIBITS PRESENTED BEFORE THE
BOARD AND DETERMINATIONS MADE BY
THE BOARD ON . . . RTS['S] APPLICATION
ARE DEEMED NULL AND VOID AND RTS
MUST RE-START ITS APPLICATION
BEFORE THE BOARD, SHOULD HAVE
BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT.
A-0858-18T2
4
POINT TWO
THE TRIAL COURT IGNORED THE UNDISPUTED
FACTS AND IMPROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT
THE BOARD PROPERLY COMPLETED THE
PROCESS OF RATIFICATION TO RECTIFY THE
OPMA VIOLATIONS.
POINT THREE
THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION IMPROPERLY
STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, REFUSED TO
FOLLOW APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
AND LONGSTANDING CASE LAW AND
ADDRESS ALL LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY
[PLAINTIFF].
POINT FOUR
THE STANDARD OF REVIEW OF SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTIONS PERMITS THIS
APPELLATE COURT TO REVERSE THE
DETERMINATIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT.
We agree the Board's multiple failures to comply with the OPMA require
reversal of the trial court's orders and remand to the Board for proceedings
consistent with this decision.
The Board conducted its reorganization meeting on January 3, 2018, at
which it adopted a revised 2018 annual meeting schedule and appointed the
Board chairman, vice chairman, secretary, attorney, engineer, court reporter and
conflict planner. RTS's application was not considered at the meeting.
A-0858-18T2
5
At the January 17, 2018 regular meeting, the Board chairman announced
RTS's application would not be heard because the meeting was not properly
noticed, and would be carried to a special meeting on January 31, 2018. 2
At the January 31 meeting, plaintiff's counsel challenged the Board's
jurisdiction. Specifically, he noted the earlier January meetings were not
included in the 2017 annual meeting schedule that was published only in the
Asbury Park Press (The Press). He also observed that notice of those early-
January meetings appeared only in the annual meeting schedule published in a
January 18, 2018 edition of The Press—after the meetings were held. Though
counsel conceded proper notice was provided for the January 31 meeting, he
argued to the Board that its failure to comply with the OPMA provisions
regarding newspaper notice of the two earlier meetings in January rendered any
actions at those meetings as well as the January 31 meeting voidable.
The Board's counsel agreed that the annual meeting schedule that included
the early-January meetings was published on January 18, only in The Press.
However, because notices of both those meetings were posted on the bulletin
board at the Board's meeting place and on the internet, and was sent by emai l to
2
Plaintiff failed to provide a transcript of the January 17, 2018 meeting.
A-0858-18T2
6
The Press on January 12, he opined the Board "did meet the requirement for
adequate notice [under the OPMA], except for [the requirement that notice be
mailed to] the two newspapers." He commented those steps constituted
"substantial compliance" with the OPMA, and invalidation of the Board's
actions was not warranted.
Plaintiff filed its complaint in the instant matter on February 16, 2018.
The Board published notice of a February 21, 2018 special meeting 3 in The Press
and The Ocean Star; the notice stated the Board was going to readopt its 2018
meeting dates. A transcript of that meeting was not provided in the appeal
record. In its merits brief, however, plaintiff admits the Board readopted its
2018 annual meeting schedule; the record reflects the schedule was published
on February 27, 2018, 4 only in The Press. The Board, in its merits brief, avers
RTS's application was not heard at that meeting.
The record contains only partial transcripts of the Board's August 15, 2018
and September 5, 2018 regular meetings. The August 15 transcript reflects the
ostensible readoption of the Board's "appointment of officers and professionals
3
We note a February 21, 2018 regular meeting appears in the annual meeting
schedule published on January 18, 2018.
4
The merits brief mistakenly lists the date as February 27, 2017.
A-0858-18T2
7
to 2018[.]" The September 5 transcript reflects the Board's approval of
"resolutions to reappoint [its] attorney and . . . professionals," including the
reappointment of the Board's engineer, planner, court reporter, and the
reappointment of the Board chairman, vice chairman and secretary. The record
reflects notice of both the August 15 and September 5 meetings were published
in only one newspaper.
We review the trial court's summary judgment decision de novo, applying
the same legal standard as the trial court. Wakefern Food Corp. v. Liberty Mut.
Fire Ins. Co., 406 N.J. Super. 524, 538 (App. Div. 2009). Thus, we consider
"whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission
to a jury [or trier of fact] or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail
as a matter of law." Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Nowell Amoroso P.A., 189
N.J. 436, 445-46 (2007) (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142
N.J. 520, 536 (1995)). If there is no genuine issue of material fact, we decide
"whether the trial court correctly interpreted the law." Massachi v. AHL Servs.,
Inc., 396 N.J. Super. 486, 494 (App. Div. 2007). "A trial court's interpretation
of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not
entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of
Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
A-0858-18T2
8
Notwithstanding the trial court's finding that the Board rectified its failure
to include the January 3 and January 17, 2018 regular meetings in the annual
meeting schedule by publishing same "later on in the month" in both The Press
and The Ocean Star, the appellate record reveals that the annual meeting
schedule published on January 18, 2018, was published only in The Press. Even
when the schedule was readopted in February 2018, it was again published only
in The Press. N.J.S.A. 10:4-18 requires that a public body, such as the Board,
mail the annual meeting notice to at least two newspapers designated by the
public body pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(2).5 We see no proof that the annual
meeting notice was mailed to The Ocean Star. Thus, there was no advance
notice of the January 3 and January 17, 2018 meetings.
Absent notice under N.J.S.A. 10:4-18, a public body must give "adequate
notice" of a meeting in compliance with N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d), which provides in
pertinent part: "'Adequate notice' means written advance notice of at least
5
The statute also requires the public body to "post and maintain posted" the
annual meeting notice throughout the year in a public place reserved for such or
similar announcements, N.J.S.A. 10:4-18 and N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(1), and submit
it to the municipal clerk, county clerk and the New Jersey Secretary of State as
dictated by N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(3). The mandated posting, mailing and
submission must be done "at least once each year, within [seven] days following
the annual organization or reorganization meeting" or by January 10 if no such
a meeting is held. N.J.S.A. 10:4-18.
A-0858-18T2
9
[forty-eight] hours, giving the time, date, location and, to the extent known, the
agenda of any regular, special or rescheduled meeting, which notice shall
accurately state whether formal action may or may not be taken[.]" Notice must
be posted in the same manner as required for the annual meeting schedule.
N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(1). It must also be "mailed, telephoned, telegrammed, or
hand delivered to at least two newspapers" designated in the same manner as
those to which an annual meeting notice is to be mailed. N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(2).
And, it must be submitted in the same manner as the annual meeting notice with
the clerks and Secretary of State. N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(3).
The procedures required by the OPMA are meant to advance the
Legislature's declared purpose to ensure
the right of the public to be present at all meetings of
public bodies, and to witness in full detail all phases of
the deliberation, policy formulation, and decision
making of public bodies, is vital to the enhancement
and proper functioning of the democratic process; [to
prevent] that secrecy in public affairs [that] undermines
the faith of the public in government and the public’s
effectiveness in fulfilling its role in a democratic
society, and . . . to insure the right of its citizens to have
adequate advance notice of and the right to attend all
meetings of public bodies at which any business
affecting the public is discussed or acted upon in any
way[.]
A-0858-18T2
10
[N.J.S.A. 10:4-7; see Times of Trenton Publ'g Corp. v.
Lafayette Yard Cmty. Dev. Corp., 183 N.J. 519, 529
(2005).]
It is undisputed that the Board failed to provide prior notice of its January
3 and January 17, 2018 meetings, and that, inexplicably, notice of all its regular
meetings on the annual meeting schedule was mailed only to The Press, not to
the second required newspaper. Both the Board's failure to comply with the
OPMA's requirements regarding its early January meetings and its flawed
attempt to remedy its initial failures cannot be countenanced. As plaintiff
clearly explained to the Board at the January 31 meeting, notice of meetings
must be mailed to two newspapers. The law mandates the Board's actions be
declared void.
The Board's actions at any non-conforming meeting are voidable by a trial
court presiding at a prerogative writs hearing. N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(a). A board,
however, "may take corrective or remedial action by acting de novo at a public
meeting held in conformity with [the OPMA] . . . regarding any action which
may otherwise be voidable[.]" Ibid. Before her elevation to our Supreme Court,
then Judge Long, recognized:
Willful violations of the Act require swift and strong
remediation. However, invalidation of public action is
an extreme remedy which should be reserved for
violations of the basic purposes underlying the Act.
A-0858-18T2
11
Polillo v. Deane, 74 N.J. 562 (1977), expressly permits
discretion in the fashioning of remedies for technical
violations of the Act which do not result from bad faith
motives and which do not undermine the fundamental
purposes of the [OPMA].
[Liebeskind v. Mayor and Mun. Council of Bayonne,
265 N.J. Super. 389, 394-95 (App. Div. 1993) (citation
omitted).]
In Polillo, much like this case, the public body's meetings, "[a]lthough
. . . publicized in some form by local newspapers," were either not noticed or
improperly noticed. 74 N.J. at 567. The public body conceded "the vast
majority of their meetings technically violated the" OPMA. Id. at 577. The
Court decried the public body's attempt to rectify its OPMA failures by taking
formal votes at two meetings which complied with OPMA because such practice
would undermine the OPMA's purpose, allowing
an agency to close its doors when conducting
negotiations or hammering out policies, and then to put
on an appearance of open government by allowing the
public to witness the proceedings at which its action is
formally adopted. Such an interpretation of the statute
would conflict with N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(a) which provides
that "a public body may take corrective or remedial
action by acting de novo at a public meeting held in
conformity with this act."
[Id. at 578 (emphasis omitted).]
A-0858-18T2
12
The Court, however, did "not find it necessary, in fashioning a remedial
solution, to invalidate and repudiate all other public meetings, particularly those
hearings at which testimony and evidence were received." Id. at 580. The Court
found the remedial provisions of N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(a) and the court's authority
to "issue such orders and provide such remedies as shall be necessary to insure
compliance with the provisions of the" OPMA, N.J.S.A. 10:4-16,
contemplate maximum flexibility in rectifying
governmental action which falls short of the standards
of openness prescribed for the conduct of official
business. Consistent with the breadth and elasticity of
relief provided in the legislative scheme, it is entirely
proper to consider the nature, quality and effect of the
noncompliance of the particular offending
governmental body in fashioning the corrective
measures which must be taken to conform with the
statute. Thus, in this context, the "substantial
compliance" argument of defendants carries some
weight on the question of remedy and relief.
[Id. at 579.]
Thus, contrary to the opinion the Board's attorney expressed at the January
31, 2108 meeting, substantial compliance with the OPMA does not, itself, justify
deviations from the notice requirements. It is, as the trial court recognized, but
one of the factors comprising the prism through which we view the Board's
actions.
A-0858-18T2
13
We first note the trial court's cogent finding that "plaintiff is not pursuing
claims against other defendants" whose matters were heard at the contested
hearings; only RTS's matter is in issue. We are also convinced the Board's
violations were technical ones, related to the newspaper-notice requirement of
the OPMA; it complied with the posting and submission requirements of
N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(1) and N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d)(3). As the trial court observed,
"plaintiff has been able to participate, enter its objections and otherwise have
its interest protected in connection with the matter in which the Board conducted
itself," and has not been excluded from participation in any Board meeting at
which the RTS application was considered. The record before us does not
contain evidence that the substantive issues of RTS's application were acted
upon; we see only that the procedural issues here considered were raised at the
January 31, 2018 meeting. The trial court stated RTS's "application is still
pending before the Board and has not been resolved[.]" Plaintiff has not
submitted any argument other than the procedural ones.
The Board's remedial actions appear to have been good-faith attempts to
rectify the mistakes made at the early January meetings. Its readoption of the
meeting schedule and the appointments were de novo actions. Unfortunately,
although notice of the February meeting at which the annual meeting schedule
A-0858-18T2
14
was readopted was proper, the Board never mailed the schedule to two
newspapers. The schedule was twice published in The Press, but it was never
sent to The Ocean Star. Hence, any regular meeting on that schedule was never
properly noticed. The remedial action of readopting the Board's appointments
that took place at the August and September meetings, therefore, did not take
place "at a public meeting held in conformity with [the OPMA]," as required by
N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(a). The Board's corrective actions did not satisfy the OPMA's
purposes or cure the notice-defect.
We fully comprehend not every violation of the OPMA requires reversal
of the body's actions at an inadequately noticed meeting. Polillo, 74 N.J. at 579.
But we cannot approve the Board's initial failure to comply with the OPMA with
regard to its early- January meetings, and its subsequent compliance failures in
attempting to remediate those failures.
Contrary to plaintiff's argument that RTS's application must be heard
anew, we need not repudiate all of the Board's actions. The Polillo Court
allowed the public body to "utilize so much of the testimony and evidence which
it acquired in the course of its original effort as it deem[ed ] necessary and
appropriate." Id. at 580. As in Polillo,
any decision in that regard must be arrived at in a
manner in strict conformity with the [OPMA] so that
A-0858-18T2
15
the public may be fully apprised by adequate notice and
a publicized agenda exactly what prior meetings and
what aspects of the existing [Board] record are sought
to be so utilized.
[Ibid.]
Again, the record does not reflect that the Board heard testimony relating to
RTS's application, but if there were proceedings undisclosed to us, we do n ot
foreclose the Board from considering those proceedings if it adheres to the
precepts set forth herein.
We "weigh[] the nature, quality and effect of the noncompliance in this
case against the potential disruption of the orderly process of government, as
well as the rights" of those in attendance at the procedurally-defective meetings.
Aronowitz v. Planning Bd. of Twp. of Lakewood, 257 N.J. Super. 347, 359-60
(Law Div. 1992). In view of plaintiff's presence at all meetings at which RTS's
application was considered, and in that the Board has not reached a final decision
on that application, we follow the Polillo Court's guidance and direct the trial
court to remand this matter to the Board to first conduct further proceedings on
RTS's application at a properly noticed meeting after it remedies its prior notice
failures by conducting de novo proceedings—again, at a properly noticed
meeting—at which it shall readopt its appointments. In our judgment, the annual
meeting notice was readopted de novo at the properly noticed February meeting.
A-0858-18T2
16
As such, the Board need only timely mail the annual meeting schedule to two
newspapers in advance of the meetings set forth therein; thereafter, any meeting
set forth in the schedule would comply with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-
18. Of course, any meeting may alternatively be noticed under N.J.S.A. 10:4-
8(d).
Such a course will ensure the Board does not skirt the legislative
requirements of the OPMA, and that the Board's previous actions are not entirely
scotched.
We determine any remaining argument not here considered to be without
sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We briefly comment
that the Board, in addressing the last proviso clause of N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(a),6
reviewed some decisional law but did not advance how the clause applies to
these circumstances. As such, we will not consider plaintiff's undeveloped
argument. Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Staffenberg, 419 N.J. Super. 386, 413 n.17
(App. Div. 2011).
6
In pertinent part, the statute provides: "[A]ny action for which advance
published notice of at least [forty-eight] hours is provided as required by law
shall not be voidable solely for failure to conform with any notice required in
this act." N.J.S.A. 10:4-15(a).
A-0858-18T2
17
The trial court's orders granting defendants' motions for summary
judgment and dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, and denying
plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment are reversed, and this matter is
remanded to the trial court for an entry of an order remanding the matter to the
Board for proceedings consistent with this decision. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
A-0858-18T2
18
JSTAR, LLC VS. BRICK TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (L-0389-18, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
Combined Opinion