Gibbons Law Alert
New Jersey case law has consistently held that new or modified development ordinance provisions apply to pending land use applications, even if the proposed zoning was specifically introduced to thwart a pending application. This has historically been known as the “time of decision” rule. On May 5, 2011, the time of decision rule will run out of time.
The deadline to file real estate tax appeals in New Jersey to challenge the assessment of real property is April 1 (or 45 days from the bulk mailing of assessment notices, whichever is later). Given widespread declines in market values in recent years, there may be an opportunity for property owners — particularly owners of multifamily, commercial and industrial property — to reduce their assessments, and hence their property taxes, by filing a tax appeal.
For the first time, the LexisNexis Environmental Law & Climate Change Community is honoring a select group of blogs that they believe set the online standard for the practice area. This Real Property & Environmental Law Alert is among the nominees. According to LexisNexis, they selected the nominees based on timely topics, quality writing, frequent posts and that certain something ‘extra’ that keeps a web audience coming back for more. They described our blog as follows: “A rotating group of contributors writes about transactional real estate, development and redevelopment, and environmental law. Although there is some focus on developments in New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia and Delaware, the content is also national in scope.”
Crucial to New Jersey’s Five-Year Exemption and Abatement Law is the time within which an application for the tax exemption or abatement must be filed with the municipal tax assessor. A recent Tax Court of New Jersey decision provides the first published opinion interpreting a crucial provision of the statute used to calculate such period of time. Under N.J.S.A. 40A:21-16, written application for a tax exemption or abatement must be made to the municipal tax assessor within 30 days (including Saturdays and Sundays) following the completion of an improvement, conversion alteration, or construction on the property for which tax abatement or exemption is sought. The statute defines “completion” of a project as the date on which same is “substantially ready for the intended use”.
Experienced New Jersey developers and land use attorneys understand the challenges that face an applicant when the proposed use is not expressly permitted in the municipality’s zoning district wherethe subject property is located. The challenge is only more complicated if the proposed use involves novel or unfamiliar technology such as renewable energy. However, in New Jersey, the government has been proactive in welcoming renewable energy projects through grants and legislation, making New Jersey definitely the place to be if you want to develop property geared towards the creation of a renewable energy facility powered by solar or wind.
As more and more business owners and homeowners in New Jersey take advantage of the incentives available to build and maintain solar energy systems and solar panels, it’s important that such investments be protected from unwanted disputes with neighbors. A little known New Jersey statute may be able to help. Recent statistics on New Jersey’s Clean Energy Program website indicate that New Jersey is the fastest growing market for solar power in the United States, and has the largest number of solar panel installations, second only to California, where neighborly disputes over trees blocking solar panels, solar panels impairing views, causing glare and other general nuisance claims are becoming more and more common.
Recently, this past December, the New Jersey Division of Taxation posted expanded Frequently Asked Questions and responses regarding the Bulk Sales Act, NJSA 54:50-38. Given the breadth of the Act, which was expanded a couple of years ago to cover transactions in which any seller makes a bulk sale, not just sellers who collect and remit sales tax, a review of these new FAQs is advisable.
Earlier this month, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided and approved for publication Cortesini v. Hamilton Township Planning Board, a case that addressed the issue of whether a developer must apply for a variance in connection with a pre-existing non-conforming condition created by a prior/non-appealable development approval. The Court’s answer was a resounding “no” based on the facts presented.
On an issue of first impression in the Third Circuit whether “a failure-to-promote claim” constitutes “discrimination in compensation” as prohibited by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (“FPA”) the Court of Appeals recently held that a failure to promote claim is not the same as a discrimination in compensation claim. Consequently, the Plaintiff in Noel v. The Boeing Company could not avail himself of the FPA’s more flexible statute of limitations period.
This is the second of two articles about counseling clients in acquiring distressed commercial mortgage loans. In the first blog post we discussed due diligence regarding the loan documents and loan collateral. This post addresses due diligence on the borrower and any guarantors, and due diligence regarding the status of the loan being acquired.