The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division recently upheld a decision by the Planning Board of the Borough of Manasquan, denying a variance application from local residents James E. Henry, Sarah Henry, and their company, 83 Morris Avenue, LLC. The court's ruling, issued on October 26, 2026, affects homeowners seeking to make modifications to their properties while adhering to local zoning laws.

The case revolves around the Henrys' request to replace a chain link fence with a six-foot solid vinyl fence on top of a three-foot retaining wall, resulting in a total height of nine feet. The Planning Board denied the application, stating that it violated the borough's zoning ordinance, which restricts fences to six feet above the existing grade of the property. This ruling has implications for other homeowners in similar situations, as it clarifies how local zoning ordinances are interpreted and enforced.

Background

The dispute began when the Henrys made improvements to their residential property in Manasquan, including building a pool, garage, and patio. Due to environmental regulations, they had to raise their backyard's elevation by adding three feet of fill, which led to the installation of retaining walls. The existing zoning ordinance restricts fence heights to six feet above the property's original grade.

Seeking to enhance safety for their children and pets, the Henrys applied for a variance to allow a nine-foot fence. The Planning Board held a hearing on June 20, 2023, where the Henrys presented evidence, including expert testimony. However, the Board ultimately voted to deny the application, citing concerns over the fence's height and its potential impact on neighboring properties.

Following the Board's decision, the Henrys filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, challenging the denial. The case was heard in the Monmouth County Superior Court, where the judge ordered a limited remand to the Planning Board for clarification on the term 'existing grade' as defined in the borough's zoning ordinance.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision on January 21, 2025, upholding the Planning Board's denial of the variance application. The judges noted, "The record supports the Board's interpretation and its decision to deny the variance was neither arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable." The judges emphasized the importance of local boards' discretion in land use decisions, stating that they must be allowed wide latitude due to their specialized knowledge of local conditions.

The court found that the Board's definition of 'existing grade'—the state of the land before any alterations—was reasonable. The Board's resolution clarified that the existing grade referred to the land's condition prior to the construction of the retaining wall, which was crucial for determining the fence's height. The judges concluded that the Henrys had not demonstrated an undue hardship that would warrant the variance.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for homeowners in Manasquan and potentially other municipalities in New Jersey. It reinforces the authority of local planning boards to interpret zoning ordinances and highlights the importance of adhering to established regulations when making property modifications.

The decision also serves as a reminder that property owners seeking variances must clearly demonstrate how their requests align with local zoning laws and the potential impact on surrounding properties. The court's ruling may discourage similar variance requests that do not meet the strict criteria outlined in zoning ordinances.

What's Next

The Henrys have the option to appeal the Appellate Division's ruling, although the opinion does not specify whether they plan to do so. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing.