Neptune Redevelopment Challenge Dismissed
A New Jersey appellate court has affirmed a trial judge’s dismissal of a citizen’s challenge to the Township of Neptune‘s designation of five acres as an “area in need of redevelopment “under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (“LRHL”). The court also dismissed the objector’s challenge to the township’s subsequent adoption of a redevelopment plan. The court held that the challenge to the redevelopment designation was not filed within 45 days after adoption of the resolution as required by Rule 4:69-6(b)(3), and did not show the type of substantial public interest that would warrant waiving the time limit. The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the designation at the time it was approved by the township. Moreover, the court found that the plaintiff did not own property in the area, and raised no claim of eminent domain abuse, lack of notice of condemnation or other constitutional issues regarding the designation. As such, the court held that the due process concerns addressed in Harrison Redevelopment Agency v. DeRose, 196 N.J. Super. 361 (2008) were not implicated.
The court also addressed the merits of plaintiff’s claim and held that the challenge to the redevelopment plan was without merit. Plaintiff alleged that the designation was based solely on the finding that the land was underutilized, under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(e), a criterion disapproved by the State Supreme Court in Gallenthin Realty Dev., Inc. v. Bor. of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007). The court disagreed and held that the township had substantiated valid reasons for the designation under other criteria set forth in the LRHL. As to the challenge to the redevelopment plan, plaintiff alleged simply that it permits a large landowner within the redevelopment area to develop its property with higher density housing than the local zoning ordinance would allow. The court found that the case presented a policy dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant-Township over the zoning for the area. The court ruled that the plan was adopted in conformity with the LRHL.
A copy of the Appellate Division’s opinion in Chambers v. Township of Neptune, Docket No. A-0981-09T2 can be found here.
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of McKirdy & Riskin’s Richard DeAngelis in submitting this post. Mr. DeAngelis served as counsel Anthony DeRose in the DeRose opinion cited above.
Related Articles
