The opinion of the court was delivered by JACOBS, J. The Appellate Division, in an opinion reported at 59 N.J. Super. 419 (1960), affirmed the State Director who had, in turn, sustained the action of Paterson's excise board in granting Mr. Hutchins' application for transfer of his licensed premises. We granted certification at the request of the objectors Morris Lubliner and Congregation Lenath Hazedic.

Tozzi admits that the denial of the transfer in December did not, standing alone, bar its approval in January. Lubliner v. Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control for City of Paterson, 59 N.J. Super. 419 ( App. Div. 1960), affirmed 33 N.J. 428 (1960). The arguments advanced by Tozzi, before the ABC and before us, for the reversal of the transfer may be summarized as follows — the law is, or should be, that there is no "right in a public official to change a prior vote * * * without good cause for such change being shown"; that Shallow failed to show good cause; and even if the burden is not upon the public official to show good cause for a change of vote, the reasons given by Shallow for his change of vote showed that he had been influenced to do so by "improper * * * outside pressure" which "infected" not only his vote but that of the entire council.

The hearing officer held that the special conditions imposed effected a curtailment of the statutory privileges of the holder of a "C" license, and thus were nugatory. He held also that the fact that the premises involved were not subject to commercial use in a residential zone did not preclude the issuance of the license, citing Lubliner v. Bd. of Alcoholic Beverage Control for City of Paterson, 59 N.J. Super. 419 ( App. Div. 1960), modified and affirmed 33 N.J. 428 (1960). We agree with both legal conclusions and find substantial evidence in the record to support them.

In this sense, compliance should not be construed to mean a patchwork attempt to rectify or supplement proceedings which are clearly deficient, particularly since a zoning board is permitted to exercise far less discretion than a typical regulatory agency and is subject to far greater procedural requirements. Lubliner v. Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 59 N.J. Super. 419, 429 ( App. Div. 1960), modified 33 N.J. 428 (1960). If this court were to permit the actions of the board to stand, it would be tantamount to an express sanction to circumvent the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-1 et seq.

Implicit in our right of review is the basic affirmative principle, not to be minimized, belittled or decried, that if the act of the administrative agency is found to be so "clearly against the logic and effect" of the facts as to demonstrate that it is "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," our duty is to reverse that action. Lubliner v. Bd. of Alcoholic Bev. Con., Paterson, 59 N.J. Super. 419, 431-432 ( App. Div. 1960), modified, 33 N.J. 428 (1960). Appellant points to the fact that, in essence, the Commission's determination of the Lodge's guilt in not "calling balls as they were drawn from the receptacle" rested merely on the fact that occasionally "the caller lifted the chute sending the balls back into the blower."

When and under what conditions such a rehearing shall be granted is for the board to decide, subject to the same review as its other decisions. Handlon v. Town of Belleville, supra; Mackler v. Board of Education of City of Camden, 16 N.J. 362, 369 (1954); Russell v. Tenafly Board of Adjustment, supra; Lubliner v. Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 59 N.J. Super. 419 ( App. Div. 1960). The Russell case stated the considerations which normally enter into a decision whether a prior determination of a zoning board of adjustment is res judicata.