Redevelopment agreements are the tool used to memorialize the respective obligations of the redeveloper and the municipality to effectuate a redevelopment project. Often, a concept plan has been agreed upon, but changes to the site-specific zoning embodied in the redevelopment plan are necessary in order for the project to advance. In an unpublished decision earlier this year, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, ruled in Fieldstone Associates, L.P. v. Borough of Merchantville, A-1239-13T3, that the municipality cannot be contractually compelled to adopt such amendments.
Author: Howard D. Geneslaw
The New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) has announced on its webpage that the submission deadline for New Year’s Eve All Night Permit Applications is November 16, 2015. The SLA has outlined the criteria that will be considered in deciding whether to issue such permits. They include: timely filing of the application; licensee’s disciplinary history (including any pending charges); and whether, given the nature of the event, the licensee has adequate facilities and security plans in place.
In a recent unpublished decision, Jerman v. Township of Berkeley, a New Jersey trial court held invalid an ordinance which required the construction of sidewalks and curbs as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval, or the payment of a fee in lieu of constructing these improvements. The decision serves as a reminder that the legal authority for municipalities to impose exactions is strictly limited as provided by statute, and requires a “rational nexus” between the project and the need for the improvement.
On Friday, December 26, Governor Christie signed into law a one year extension of New Jersey’s Permit Extension Act (“PEA”). As noted in our recent blog, the PEA previously was set to expire on December 31, 2014. Initially enacted in 2008 in response to “the crisis in the real estate finance sector of the economy,” the purpose of the PEA was to toll the expiration of various approvals necessary for development through the end of 2012. The PEA was later amended to extend the tolling of the expiration of those approvals through the end of 2014. The further amendment enacted on December 26, designated as P.L.2014, c.84, tolls the expiration of those approvals through December 31, 2015, thereby providing projects with permits set to expire another year in which to move forward.
Our recent blog noted that New Jersey’s Permit Extension Act (“PEA”) was to sunset at the end of this year unless a further extension was enacted into law. On Thursday, December 18, both the Assembly and the Senate voted to approve a one year extension of the PEA. The legislation now awaits action by the Governor. New Jersey’s Permit Extension Act (“PEA”) was initially enacted in 2008 in response to “the crisis in the real estate finance sector of the economy.” The purpose of the PEA was to toll through the end of 2012, expiration of various approvals necessary for development. The PEA was later amended in 2012, due to the then “current national recession,” to extend the tolling of the expiration of those approvals until December 31, 2014. Unless the Legislature approves a further extension, the PEA will sunset at the end of this year, posing a problem for projects which have not yet started construction, because their approvals may expire.
The New Jersey Highlands Council has scheduled three Stakeholder Outreach Workshops to solicit public input on the Highlands Regional Master Plan (RMP) as part of its RMP Monitoring Program. According to public notices issued by the Highlands Council, the workshops are intended to provide members of the public with an opportunity to learn more about the monitoring program and to provide input. The notices also state, “[t]he Monitoring Program evaluates progress toward achieving the goals of the Highlands Regional Master Plan,” and “[t]he program requires identification of indicators and milestones to measure the impact of the Regional Master Plan on water resources, agriculture, housing, transportation, and economic development within the Highlands Region.”
Tolling of Approvals Under New Jersey’s Permit Extension Act: Will The End Of The Year Be The End Of The Line? Approved Projects Could Be At Risk
New Jersey’s Permit Extension Act (“PEA”) was initially enacted in 2008 — in response to “the crisis in the real estate finance sector of the economy” — for the purpose of tolling, through the end of 2012, expiration of various approvals necessary for development. It was later extended, in 2012, due to the then “current national recession,” to extend the tolling of the expiration of those approvals until December 31, 2014. Unless the Legislature approves a further extension, the PEA will sunset at the end of this year, and that could pose a problem for projects which have not yet started construction, because their approvals may expire.
Rebuilding New Jersey After Sandy – Legislation Would Require Standby Generators for a Variety of Businesses and Facilities
This article is the third in a series that deals with the legal implications of Superstorm Sandy, which devastated many areas of New Jersey on October 29, 2012. The resulting widespread power outages crippled many businesses which serve the public by providing essential services. To prevent that situation from recurring, a number of bills have been introduced in the New Jersey legislature which would require a variety of private businesses and facilities to install standby generators.
In a recent decision of the Superior Court of Connecticut, Fairfield Judicial District, captioned Urban Girls, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Bridgeport, the Court was confronted with an interesting set of issues involving the intersection of the alleged lapse of a nonconforming use and the resulting loss of the right to utilize a liquor permit. The Court found that the Zoning Board of Appeals applied the incorrect standard by following the Bridgeport zoning regulations, which had not been amended to reflect amendments to the State’s zoning laws. Thus, the matter was remanded to the Zoning Board of Appeals to make a determination on whether there was an intent to abandon the nonconforming use, which would be determinative on the status of the liquor permit.
New York Appellate Division Strikes Conditions of Approval Unrelated to Site Plan Which Arose from Applicant’s Past Conduct
In its recent decision in the Matter of Kempisty v. Town of Geddes, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, provides an important reminder to approving authorities that conditions attached to the approval of site plans must have some legitimate relationship or “nexus” to the project’s impacts or they will be stricken. Although the case breaks no new ground, it does effectively outline the considerations that should be applied when determining whether to impose conditions of approval.