A New Jersey appellate court has affirmed the dismissal of an appeal filed by David Faloba against his neighbor Antoinette Vento regarding the construction of a swimming pool. The court ruled that the local township and board did not have the authority to enforce state environmental regulations related to the pool's construction. This decision impacts property owners who may face similar disputes over local development projects.

The case, David Faloba v. Antoinette Vento, was decided by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division on October 26, 2026, under docket number A-3118-24. The court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the jurisdictional limits of local boards in enforcing state environmental laws, particularly in coastal areas.

Background

David Faloba filed the appeal as the attorney-in-fact for his parents, Samuel Jeffrey Faloba and Arlene S. Faloba, who own property adjacent to Vento's. The dispute arose when Vento applied for variances to build an inground plunge pool on her property, which is located on a barrier island in Toms River, New Jersey. The property is situated near a lagoon that leads to Barnegat Bay.

In 2024, Vento sought several variances from the Toms River Township Board of Adjustment to install the pool closer to her bulkhead than local ordinances typically allow. The board approved her application, despite concerns raised by Faloba regarding potential flooding issues and the need for compliance with state environmental regulations under the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA).

The Ruling

The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss Faloba's action, which sought both declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the permits issued for Vento's pool. The court found that the local board and township officials lacked the authority to determine whether Vento's project complied with DEP regulations. The ruling stated, "The Township and the Board do not have the authority to determine if DEP regulations apply to a proposed development or if a property owner complied with the permit-by-rule requirements for a particular project. That authority rests solely with DEP."

Furthermore, the court noted that Faloba's claims were based on the assumption that the pool construction violated state regulations. However, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had already determined that Vento's pool complied with the necessary permit-by-rule requirements, rendering Faloba's appeal moot. The court concluded that Faloba had not established a viable claim for civil rights violations or nuisance, leading to the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for property owners in New Jersey, particularly those living in coastal areas. It clarifies that local boards cannot enforce state environmental regulations and that property owners must appeal to the Appellate Division for any grievances related to state agency inaction. This decision could set a precedent for future disputes involving local development projects and state environmental compliance.

Additionally, the court's affirmation of the dismissal highlights the importance of understanding the jurisdictional boundaries between local and state authorities in land use and environmental matters. Property owners may need to be more vigilant in ensuring that their concerns are addressed at the appropriate level of government.

What's Next

As the appellate court's decision is final, Faloba's options for further appeal are limited. He may seek to challenge the DEP's determination regarding the pool's compliance through a separate appeal if he receives notice of that determination. However, the court has made it clear that jurisdiction over such matters lies with the Appellate Division, and any future actions must align with this ruling.