62-64 Main Street, L.L.C. v. Mayor of Hackensack
110 A.3d 877
N.J.2015Background
- Hackensack designated a two-block area as in need of redevelopment, including plaintiffs’ five contiguous lots (62-64 Main Street and 59-61 Moore Street).
- Planning Board found Lots 4-7 vacant, dilapidated, with unsafe exterior conditions; Lot 8 parking lot was unsightly and poorly designed.
- Mayor and Council adopted those findings, designating eleven total lots as in need of redevelopment.
- Plaintiffs challenged the designation under Gallenthin, arguing blight standard requires constitutionally defined blight beyond statutory criteria.
- Trial court upheld designation; Appellate Division reversed, applying a broader constitutional blight standard to subsections (a), (b), and (d).
- This Court held that Gallenthin addresses only subsection (e) and that subsections (a), (b), and (d) remain constitutionally valid under Wilson and Levin; substantial evidence supports designation here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether designation complied with Blighted Areas Clause and LRHL | Hackensack did not prove blight under Gallenthin. | Designation conformed to LRHL criteria (a, b, d) and Gallenthin does not require extra blight findings. | Designation upheld; substantial evidence supports area in need of redevelopment. |
| Whether Gallenthin's blight standard applies to all LRHL subsections | Gallenthin set a universal blight standard for all subsections. | Gallenthin applies only to subsection (e); Wilson/Levin validate (a, b, d). | Gallenthin does not overrule Wilson/Levin; subsections (a), (b), (d) constitutional. |
| Whether findings were sufficiently specific and not merely conclusory | Board relied on boilerplate terms without factual support. | Record contained witnesses, reports, and photos; findings adequate. | Findings insufficiently detailed per Gallenthin; but Court affirms, analyzing substantial evidence. |
| Whether the area designation could include sound properties essential to redevelopment | Including Lot 8 as part of the area was improper. | Area designations may include non-blighted parcels when necessary to redevelopment. | Area designation permitted; parcels evaluated as part of a larger redevelopment area. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (N.J. 2007) (defined blight as deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding properties; invalidated (e) when not tied to blight under Constitution)
- Wilson v. City of Long Branch, 27 N.J. 360 (N.J. 1958) (upheld constitutionality of BAA subsections (a), (b), (d) and channeling of municipal authority)
- Levin v. Township Committee of Bridgewater, 57 N.J. 506 (N.J. 1971) (upheld validity of blighted areas classifications under BAA; acknowledged area-focused approach)
- Forbes v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Orange Vill., 312 N.J.Super. 519 (App.Div. 1998) (noted that blight definitions in 1951 Act were virtually identical to later statute; upholding constitutionality)