Other1 min read

New Jersey court upholds dismissal of fight over pool 8 feet from bulkhead

By · Via Times of India · Published by Everything Blog

In short

The dispute originated when Antoinette Vento received variances and permits from Toms River to install a plunge pool 8.3 feet from her bulkhead along a lagoon tied to Barnegat Bay. David Faloba challenged the local and state approvals on behalf of his parents, arguing the reduced setback threatened neighboring land with tidal water inundation. An engineer testified that the design met municipal rules despite standard state coastal regulations recommending a 15-foot buffer, and Vento's attorney agreed to build a boundary retaining wall. Ultimately, appellate judges found no legal wrongdoing after environmental authorities verified the site met permit-by-rule provisions.

Key points

  • Appellate judges affirmed the dismissal because the homeowner met all necessary environme…: Appellate judges affirmed the dismissal because the homeowner met all necessary environmental and zoning mandates.
  • Regulators confirmed the property owner submitted an engineering certification and formal…: Regulators confirmed the property owner submitted an engineering certification and formally recorded a conservation restriction.
  • Mitigation efforts included an agreement by the property owner's legal counsel to install…: Mitigation efforts included an agreement by the property owner's legal counsel to install a retaining wall along the boundary line.

Sources checked by our analysis pipeline: 1

How close is too close when a neighbour builds a swimming pool beside a waterfront property already vulnerable to flooding? For one family in Toms River, New Jersey, the proposed installation of an in-ground plunge pool raised concerns about tidal water flowing onto their land, coastal construction rules and whether local authorities had properly issued the necessary permits. David Faloba, acting on behalf of his parents, challenged the project, arguing that the pool could worsen flooding and that the approvals did not comply with environmental requirements.

On October 26, 2026, the New Jersey Superior Court's Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of Faloba's lawsuit against his parents' neighbour, Antoinette Vento, the Township of Toms River, its Board of Adjustment and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In its

opinion in David Faloba v. Antoinette Vento, available on LAWS.com, the court explained that the environmental agency had determined the pool complied with the applicable requirements, leaving no basis for the relief Faloba sought. The decision also addressed the limits of local authorities' powers and the proper legal route for challenging…

Other