Plainfield Redevelopment Project Upheld on Appeal
Bucking a trend of court decisions striking down redevelopment projects, a New Jersey appellate court has determined that the City of Plainfield may proceed with a redevelopment project in the City because it satisfied criterion (d) under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL), N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(d), and due to the “substantial evidence” contained in the record on appeal. The court noted how the engineering firm of Remington & Vernick revisited and revised its plan to accommodate the principles announced in the 2007 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007), which was released during the planning board hearing process. Additionally, the court recognized that the planning board and governing body also had the benefit of the Gallenthin decision when it adopted the plan, and was able to apply the standards as required under the law.
The Plainfield opinion highlights that the expert opinion upon which the planning board and governing body relied was not a net opinion because it discussed the specific conditions of each property, how those conditions satisfied the LRHL’s criteria, and detailed the way those conditions affected the surrounding community. The court also rejected the property owners’ argument that the planning board failed to consider any benefits the current uses may provide because that argument only applies to section (e) of the LRHL. Finally, the court found unpersuasive the argument that the motion judge failed to consider an unpublished opinion from another judge in the same vicinage by stating that each case is fact sensitive and must be decided on its own merits. The decision to uphold the area in need of redevelopment designation was affirmed. As a result, the City is now permitted to proceed with the redevelopment project, and the use of eminent domain to acquire properties within the redevelopment area is authorized under New Jersey law.
A copy of the Appellate Division’s opinion in Suburban Jewelers, Inc., v. City of Plainfield can be found here.
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Cory K. Kestner, Esq., of McKirdy & Riskin, PA, in the preparation of this article.
