## Facts

- Monmouth University applied to the Borough of West Long Branch Board of Adjustment for site-plan approval and zoning variances to construct a student dormitory project.
- The proposal included a 48,800-square-foot, three-story, 196-bed dormitory, parking (including a 126-space lot), six tennis courts with related parking, a public restroom, and stormwater facilities.
- The project site was located in a low-density residential zone; neighboring residents objected that the dormitory and related features were inconsistent with the zoning scheme.
- Joseph Hughes and other nearby property owners opposed the application during the public hearings and later challenged the approval in court.
- After hearings with testimony and public participation, the Board voted 5–1 to approve the application and granted thirteen separate use and bulk variances.
- In a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, plaintiffs alleged that multiple Board members should have been disqualified because of connections to the University, including alumni status, a board member’s child having attended in the past, a board member’s company having performed work for the University more than a decade earlier, and attendance at University athletic events or fundraisers that were open to the public.
- Plaintiffs also argued that one member’s participation in hearings, followed by recusal from the final vote, invalidated the action, and that the number and scope of variances effectively displaced the governing body’s zoning authority.
- The Law Division upheld the Board’s approval, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Board members had disqualifying “personal or financial” interests under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-69 and common-law conflict rules based on attenuated ties to Monmouth University (e.g., alumni status, a child’s prior attendance, remote past business work, and attending public University events).
2. Whether the proceedings were tainted where a Board member participated in earlier hearings but later recused and did not vote on the final decision.
3. Whether approving the site plan and granting thirteen use and bulk variances was, in substance, an improper rewriting of the zoning ordinance (a de facto rezoning beyond the Board’s authority).

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division and sustained the Board’s site plan approval and the variances.
- The court held that the cited affiliations with the University were too indirect and too remote to constitute disqualifying personal or financial interests under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-69.
- The court held that earlier participation by a member who later recused from voting did not invalidate the Board’s action absent a showing that the participation affected fairness or the outcome.
- The court held that the Board’s grant of multiple variances did not amount to an unlawful displacement of the municipality’s zoning power and was a valid exercise of variance authority supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- N.J.S.A. 40:55D-69 bars a board of adjustment member from acting on matters in which the member has a direct or indirect personal or financial interest; the statute reflects existing common-law conflict standards. See, e.g., *Care of Tenafly, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly*, 307 N.J. Super. 362 (App. Div. 1998).
- A disqualifying conflict requires more than generalized goodwill or community connections; the interest must be of a sort that could reasonably affect impartial judgment.
- Alumni status, a family member’s past enrollment, attending public events, or business dealings that ended many years earlier—without a present financial stake or other concrete interest—do not, by themselves, require disqualification.
- Municipal land-use decisions are presumed valid; challengers bear the burden to show disqualifying bias, improper influence, or that the process was unfair.
- A board action is not automatically void because a member who later recuses participated in earlier proceedings; relief generally requires a showing that the member’s involvement likely affected deliberations, the vote, or basic fairness.
- A board of adjustment may grant more than one variance, including significant variances, when statutory criteria are met; the question is whether the approval is a lawful application of variance powers rather than an attempt to rewrite the zoning scheme for the area.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division upheld West Long Branch’s approval of Monmouth University’s dormitory project because the board members’ alleged ties to the University were too attenuated to disqualify them under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-69, the participation of a member who later recused did not taint the proceedings without proof of unfairness, and the Board’s grant of multiple use and bulk variances remained within its statutory authority rather than operating as an improper rezoning.


Hughes v. Monmouth University, 925 A.2d 741, 394 N.J. Super. 193 (2007)