"From Ink to Occupancy" Real Estate Program at Gibbons P.C. Armed Attendees with Fundamentals & Information on the Latest Trends

Ivette P. Alvarado Nancy A. Lottinville Jennifer M. Porter“From Ink to Occupancy, A Game Plan for a Successful Real Estate Project,” the latest installation of the Gibbons Women’s Initiative Seminar Series, was held earlier last week and attracted a great crowd, including real estate professionals and in-house counsel. Ivette P. Alvarado, Nancy A. Lottinville, and Jennifer M. Porter guided attendees through the nuts and bolts of a commercial real estate contract, due diligence and the land use approvals process, with a focus on New Jersey and New York. A portion of the program was also dedicated to the current “Hot Topics” of real estate in New Jersey and New York, including FEMA’s Advisory Base Flood Elevations and cross-access easement issues. Thanks to various requests from attendees for more information, the RPE Law Alert will be posting blogs over the course of the next few weeks expanding on the topics covered during the program. Watch for the next installation: “Properly Identifying the Property in the Contract: Are You Sure You Know What You’re Getting?”


* Pictured above (left to right): Ivette P. Alvarado, Nancy A. Lottinville, Jennifer M. Porter

Jennifer Porter to Speak at New York CLE Program on the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

Jennifer M. Porter, Esq., a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, will be a speaker at Lorman’s New York CLE Program SEQRA, on Friday, March 8, 2013, in Latham, New York.

The all-day program will provide a comprehensive overview of New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), including specific discussion on regulatory requirements and compliance, the integration of SEQRA with the project review process, cumulative impacts and segmentation, the new environmental assessment forms, the proposed amendments to SEQRA, as well as offer practical advice on how to use SEQRA to obtain a better project without bankrupting the applicant. Ms. Porter will be part of the afternoon panel and will be discussing SEQRA litigation issues including the statute of limitations, standing to sue, defending or attacking negative declarations and procedural and substantive judicial review.

The program is designed for attorneys, engineers, architects, city and county planners, environmental professionals, presidents, vice presidents, water resource specialists, public works directors, surveyors and project managers. For more information and to register for the program, click here.

Brand New Philadelphia Zoning Code Amended After Only 5 Months

Well that didn’t take long. Last August, following a four year process, the City of Philadelphia’s comprehensive new zoning code became law. Because of the law’s broad scope and sweeping changes, it was agreed that the Code would be revisited one year after its enactment to determine its effectiveness and to consider making any necessary changes. Yet, on January 24, 2013, a mere 5 months later ,the Philadelphia City Council, overriding a veto by Mayor Michael Nutter, passed Bill No. 120889 by a vote of 13-3 and amended the new Code, significantly complicating pre-hearing interaction between neighbors and developers which the Code was intended to streamline. While Council has enacted some minor “clean-up” amendments to the Code since August, this amendment could have substantial consequences.

Many of the amendments impact developers who have filed an appeal to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment. Among other things, these amendments (i) significantly increase the number of people to whom a developer must give notice of its appeal, (ii) require that the notices be mailed or hand delivered, and (iii) potentially increase the number of civic association meetings that developer must have before proceeding to the Zoning Board. Whereas the new Code sought to streamline this process, these amendments will likely serve to prolong it.

So now, in addition to providing notice to the local Registered Community Organization (RCO) where the property is situated (which is an existing requirement), developers (owner-occupied residential properties containing three or fewer units are exempt) filing an appeal to the Zoning Board must now also give written notice to:

  • The Councilperson in whose district the property is located; and
  • The owner, occupant, managing agent or other responsible person for:
    • every property on the same block as the subject property; and
    • every property on any blockface adjacent to the blockface of the subject property; and
    • every property on the blockface across the street from the subject property; and
    • every property on any blockface across the street from a blockface that is adjacent to the blockface of the subject property.

Under last August’s version of the Code, where more than one Local RCO existed with boundaries that included the subject property, those Local RCOs were required to coordinate one single meeting for the developer to discuss its application with the community. No longer. This month’s amendment permits any applicable RCO to request that the local Councilperson, the Philadelphia Planning Commission or the Zoning Board determine whether there will be a single meeting with all interested Local RCOs or separate meetings with each Local RCO.

Local RCOs also now have enhanced notice responsibilities under Bill No. 120889, and are required to provide written notice (delivered by mail or by hand) of the public meeting with the developer to: 

  • The owner, occupant, managing agent or other responsible person for:
    • every property on the same block as the subject property; and
    • every property on any blockface adjacent to the blockface of the subject property; and
    • every property on the blockface across the street from the subject property; and
    • every property on any blockface across the street from a blockface that is adjacent to the blockface of the subject property.

Compliance with these and all other notice requirements in the Code is imperative in order for a developer to be able to have its appeal heard by Zoning Board.

The composition of a Civic Design Review Committee has also been altered where the boundaries of more than one Local RCO include the subject property. In such a case, the size of the Committee will grow, with up to two RCO seats, one for each Local RCO, on the Committee, and with the local Councilperson, at his or her discretion, being permitted to add a designee to the Committee.

With several amendments passed, and other proposed Code amendments now in committee, Council does not appear to be done tinkering with the work of the Zoning Code Commission.


Alfred R. Fuscaldo is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Developer Alert: Philadelphia Looking to Establish Land Bank Under New State Legislation

The redevelopment of vacant and blighted parcels has been a cumbersome, frustrating and, in many cases unsuccessful, process for municipalities and developers alike. Pennsylvania’s new land bank legislation could change all that. Philadelphia, with its own land bank legislation is poised to take advantage of the state legislation.

In October 2012, Governor Tom Corbett signed into law House Bill No 1682, enabling legislation, which opens the door for municipalities throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to establish land banks. Land banks create a vehicle to return vacant, abandoned or tax delinquent properties back to productive use. Over 75 municipalities throughout the United States have turned to land banks as means to battle blight, rebuild neighborhoods and spur economic growth.

Frequently, multiple agencies within a city, borough or township hold title to vacant, abandoned or tax delinquent properties, complicating procedures to deal with those parcels. In sharp contrast, a land bank serves as the central repository for such government-owned properties within its boundaries so as to better position them for redevelopment.

Once created by a municipality (or multiple municipalities) by ordinance, land banks are governmental entities. Land banks are governed by a board of between five and eleven members, at least one of which must be a non-municipal employed resident of the jurisdiction who is a member of a recognized civic association in the jurisdiction. Title to the properties is held in the name of the land bank, and the land bank must make its inventory of properties available for public review and inspection.

Among other things, land banks can:

  • Acquire, lease and sell properties for consideration in form and amount as it deems appropriate;
  • Accept transfers of properties from the municipalities, tax claim bureaus and redevelopment authorities within is geographic borders;
  • Design, demolish, construct, rehabilitate and improve real property; 
  • Discharge tax liens and initiate expedited quiet title actions to make the properties more attractive to developers;
  • Issue bonds and borrow money from government and the private sector alike in order to pursue its mission;
  • Retain management companies;
  • Enter into partnerships and joint venture agreements with municipalities and private developers to own, manage, develop and dispose of property; and
  • Grant easements and licenses. Land banks do not, however, have the power of eminent domain.

The City of Philadelphia has taken the steps to establish its own land bank as a way of countering the more than 40,000 vacant parcels within its borders. Legislation co-sponsored by City Councilmembers Maria Quinones Sanchez, Bill Green and Bobby Henon was introduced in early 2012 to create the “Philadelphia Land Bank.” Proffered before HB 1682 was enacted, the City’s legislation, Bill No. 120052, is still in committee and will need to be conformed to the new state law.

As currently proposed, the Philadelphia land bank law would, among other things: 

  • Create a land bank board consisting of seven members, at least three of whom would be representatives of housing or community development non-profits, or civic associations from low or moderate income neighborhoods;
  • Keep an up to date inventory of available property, a map of the locations of those properties, a map of other properties within the City reasonably known to be vacant and a record of the land bank’s conveyances;
  • Provide mechanisms for notice and an opportunity to comment to individuals and registered community organizations prior to the use or transfer of a land bank property;
  • Permit the land bank to discharge liens and other municipal claims, fines and other charges against its properties;
  • Allow individuals to make application seeking to have the land bank request that the City certifies certain properties for upset sale;
  • Allow the Councilperson within whose jurisdiction a property is located the opportunity to review and to approve or disapprove of a proposed transaction concerning that property; and
  • Permit the land bank to enforce conditions of a sale via mortgage, deed restriction or restrictive covenant.

We will continue to update this blog to track the status of the City’s land bank legislation as it makes its way through Council.


Alfred R. Fuscaldo is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Rebuilding New Jersey After Sandy - Hurdles for Nonconforming Uses

On October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy devastated many areas of New Jersey, with the coastal areas seeing unprecedented devastation. Residents and business owners from the Jersey Shore, including the bayshore areas, face the daunting task of rebuilding. Many business and property owners, however, cannot simply apply for a building permit to replace damaged structures. For many, it will be an uphill legal battle to rebuild. This is particularly true for property owners who had been operating nonconforming uses.

Many businesses and residences in the shore area were constructed many years ago, before local zoning codes were adopted or subsequently amended. When municipalities subsequently adopted or amended their zoning ordinances, some existing uses were rendered prohibited. Those existing, but subsequently prohibited uses, are known as nonconforming uses.

The Municipal Land Use Law (“MLUL”) defines a nonconforming use as “a use or activity which was lawful prior to the adoption, revision, or amendment of a zoning ordinance, but which fails to conform to the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located by reason of such adoption, revision or amendment.” N.J.S.A. 40:55D-5. When a person lawfully uses the land, buildings, or premises, and applicable zoning regulations are subsequently amended, he or she “acquire[s] a vested right to continue in such form, irrespective of the restrictive zoning provision.” Belleville v. Parrillo’s, Inc., 83 N.J. 309, 315 (1980).

To protect that right, the MLUL states that “[a]ny nonconforming use or structure existing at the time of the passage of an ordinance may be continued upon the lot or in the structure so occupied and any such structure may be restored or repaired in the event of partial destruction thereof.” N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68. Thus, the law protects the continued existence of nonconforming uses absent abandonment or more than partial destruction.

However, in the event of more than partial destruction, even if such destruction is due to fire or a natural disaster, the property owner loses vested rights to the structure and/or use. “Partial destruction,” unfortunately, is not clear cut. Most towns have definitions that vary from 30% destruction to up to 50% destruction. Towns also vary on the unit of measurement. Some look to the size of the structure, while others look to its taxable value. Some of those types of ordinances, however, have been overturned by the Court in favor of a fact-based determination in each case. Thus, absent total destruction, whether an owner still has vested rights to continue a nonconforming use can be extremely fact sensitive and will vary from town to town.

If the structure housing the nonconforming use was indeed more than partially destroyed, the owner will need to apply to the local Zoning Board of Adjustment for a use variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d), among other approvals. The standard for obtaining a use variance is difficult to meet, and at least five members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment must vote to approve the variance. Even if successful, the applicant will still incur costs for application fees, escrow deposits, engineering and other design professional costs, and, if a business entity, attorneys fees.

Therefore, although property owners are not absolutely prohibited from reconstructing nonconforming uses, they should be aware that gaining the necessary governmental approvals may be costly and time consuming.


Jennifer P. Smith is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

The New Philadelphia Zoning Code - Take Notice

The revised Philadelphia Zoning Code will be effective before your Labor Day barbeque is over, and there is a smorgasbord of changes to digest. For instance, let’s take “notice,” a contentious issue the new Code seeks to resolve with procedural safeguards and requirements.

A frequent area of conflict under the current (soon to be former) Code centered on interactions between developers and neighbors during the zoning/use approval process. Many times, a developer would complain that it did not know which neighborhood civic association represented a particular area, or that a civic association’s meeting schedule resulted in delays in the zoning hearing and approval process. Conversely, neighbors would charge that they were not given adequate notice of applications filed or permits issued with enough lead time to have meaningful input into the process. The revised Code seeks to balance the property owner/developer’s interest in certainty, both in terms of time required to complete the application process and identification of potentially interested parties, against the neighbors’ need for notice of the application and an opportunity to participate.

Under the revised Code, a civic association which desires to receive notices of applications and hearings will have to register annually with the City of Philadelphia Planning Commission as a Registered Community Organization, or RCO. In that registration, the RCO must, among other things, identify a contact person, specify its geographic boundaries, and advise whether it wants to be provided with notices by mail or electronically. An RCO can either be a Local Registered Community Organization, which has a geographic concern relating to a certain neighborhood, or an Issue-based Registered Community Organization, which can claim a much larger geographic area of concern, even up to entirety of the city.

Each RCO is entitled to notice with respect to a project within its registered boundaries from the applicant within seven days after (i) the applicant has appealed to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment for special exception or variance approval, or (ii) the Department of Licenses and Inspections (L&I) has determined that Civic Design Review (to be discussed in a later blog post) is required with respect to the application. L&I is charged with providing the applicant with the identities of each RCO to be contacted and provided notice. The applicant’s notice must contain specific information, including the name of the applicant, the location of the property, the nature of the application and the time and place of any required meeting or hearing.

The Local RCO must schedule and hold a meeting with the applicant within forty five days after the applicant has (i) appealed to the Zoning Board or (ii) has been notified that Civic Design Review is required. No proceeding before the Zoning Board or Civic Design Review Committee can occur until the applicant and Local RCO have satisfied the requirements to meet, or the forty five day period has passed.

The rules surrounding the posting of Zoning Board hearing notices on a property have also changed. For example, under the current Code, those notices must only be posted for the twelve days prior to and including the hearing date. As of August 22, 2012, zoning notices will need to remain posted continuously for the twenty one days prior to and including the hearing date. In addition, if the hearing is continued to a date more than seven days later than the original hearing date, the applicant must post a notice at the property from the date seven days after the original hearing date, until the date of the continued hearing.

This blog post should not be considered a comprehensive summary of all of the changes made by the revised Code in these areas. The revisions to the notice procedures should be reviewed in their entirety as they are intricate and detailed. Close attention must be paid to them, however, as failure to do so could result in the same kinds of project delays for which the Zoning Code Commission sought a remedy.


Alfred R. Fuscaldo is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Nancy Lottinville to Speak at PLI's NJ Basic Law CLE Marathon Program on Real Estate Closing Procedures

Nancy A. Lottinville, Esq., Counsel to the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, will speak at the Practicing Law Institute’s New Jersey Basic Law CLE Marathon on May 29, 2012. Nancy will present on New Jersey real estate closing procedures.

The all-day program is designed to satisfy part of the newly instituted mandatory continuing legal education requirements in New Jersey and to hone legal professionalism. In accordance with New Jersey’s requirements, this one-day program will include New Jersey-specific instruction and discussion on topics authorized by the Supreme Court of New Jersey Board of Continuing Legal Education, including Civil Trial Practice, Criminal Trial Practice, Basic Estate Adminsitration, Real Estate Closing Procedures, Trust and Business Accounting and New Jersey Professional Responsibility and Ethics.

Nancy’s presentation will cover Real Estate Closing Procedures, including:

  • Classes of property and types of ownership
  • Land use controls and regulations
  • Financing and the mortgage market mandated disclosures
  • Transfer of property

For those unable to attend, the program is also being webcast. For more information and to register for the program, click here.

 

Jennifer Porter to Speak at New York CLE Program on the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

Jennifer M. Porter, Esq., a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, will be a speaker at Lorman’s New York CLE Program SEQRA, on Thursday, June 7, 2012, in Long Island (Carle Place), New York.

The all-day program will provide a comprehensive overview of New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) including specific discussion on regulatory requirements and compliance, analysis methodologies and techniques of SEQRA, recent trends and case law, incorporating renewable resources into the planning process and environmental review of public/private partnerships. Ms. Porter will be part of the morning panel and will be discussing SEQRA basics, including applicable state and local regulations, SEQRA processes and procedures, agencies and decisions subject to SEQRA, determining “significance,” and EIS preparation and review.

The program is designed for attorneys, engineers, architects, city and county planners, environmental professionals, presidents, vice presidents, water resource specialists, public works directors, surveyors and project managers. For more information and to register for the program, click here.

The Extension of the Permit Extension Act is on the Move, To Be Reviewed Today By Assembly Appropriations Committee

About two months ago, several NJ Legislators, including State Senator Paul Sarlo (Bergen/Passaic) and Assemblyman Ronald Dancer, proposed bills that would amend the 2008 “Permit Extension Act.” Designed to give developers breathing room in the sluggish economy by extending the validity of development approvals, Proposed Bill S743 (the “Bill” or “S743”) is gaining traction and is moving through the necessary legislative committees. On March 5, 2012, S743 passed by a vote of 4-0 by the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. The Bill is scheduled to go before the Assembly Appropriations Committee on March 12, 2012.

Under the current version of the Permit Extension Act, the expiration of all “approvals” that were granted during the “extension period” as defined in the statute have been tolled through December 31, 2012. The “extension period” is currently defined as “the period beginning January 1, 2007 and continuing through December 31, 2012.” S743 proposes that the definition of the “extension period” be changed so that it runs through December 31, 2014. Therefore, based on the 6-month tolling provision currently in the Permit Extension Act, approvals received during the extension period could be extended as far out as June 30, 2015. It should be noted that A337 proposed to extend the “extension period” through December 31, 2015. However, A337 has not gained the same head of steam as S743.

S743 as amended includes language to make it clear that as it pertains to Statewide planning areas, the definition of “extension area” shall remain in effect until June 30, 2013, or until such later time as the State Planning Commission revises and readopts New Jersey’s State Strategic Plan and adopts regulations to refine this definition. Further, all underlying municipal, county, and State permits or approvals within the Pinelands Area are extended pursuant to the “Pinelands Protection Act,” N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seq.

The definition of “approvals” under the Permit Extension Act covers most permits issued by State rule or regulation, including, preliminary and final approvals for development applications under the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law. S743 proposes that the definition of “approvals” be amended to include any “agreement with a municipality, county, municipal authority, sewerage authority, or other governmental authority for the use or reservation of sewerage capacity.”

S743 appears to be the bill that may amend the Permit Extension Act to help developers that need to wait a little longer for the economy to bounce back to save projects for which they have spent significant funds in obtaining approvals for development.


Jason R. Tuvel is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Law Department.