Representative Image (AI-generated)
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). 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. 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 state agency action or inaction.
Dispute centred on coastal construction regulations
These conditions included demonstrating that there was no alternative to locating the proposed structure within 15 feet of the bulkhead, providing an engineering certification concerning future bulkhead replacement, and recording a conservation restriction. 7:7-4.22, concerned construction of pools and associated decking on bulkheaded lots without wetlands. The rules have since been recodified. The regulation cited by Faloba, N.J.A.C. The court explained that the relevant permit-by-rule requirements were subsequently moved to another section of the state regulations.
The DEP closed the matter on March 14, 2025. On April 25, 2025, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice, rejecting his requests for relief, damages and legal costs. It therefore affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit.
However, the agency’s determination was not disclosed to the parties or the trial court at that time. Meanwhile, Faloba had filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the permits, halt construction and compel the authorities to enforce the environmental regulations. On appeal, Faloba argued that the lower court had wrongly rejected his claims and that the authorities should have been compelled to enforce the law. The appellate court upheld the dismissal, finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the DEP to take the enforcement action he sought. The judges explained that challenges to state agency action or inaction must be brought through the appropriate appellate process. They also found that the DEP’s determination that the pool complied with the relevant requirements had rendered the principal requests for relief moot. The court rejected the remaining claims as well, finding no basis to revive the civil rights and nuisance allegations. The opinion was designated unpublished, meaning it is binding on the parties but generally cannot be cited as precedent in other cases under New Jersey’s court rules. The ruling does not establish that waterfront pools can never worsen flooding or that every similar project automatically complies with coastal regulations. Instead, it underscores the importance of following the correct legal process and identifying the authority responsible for reviewing permits and enforcing environmental rules.