200 A.3d 419
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2019Background
- Defendants own a .91-acre vacant lot in Glassboro located within a redevelopment area designated in 2000; Borough seeks to condemn it under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(c) purportedly to increase public parking related to redevelopment.
- Borough adopted an ordinance authorizing acquisition and filed a verified condemnation complaint asserting the taking is "necessary" for redevelopment and specifically for public parking; the ordinance and complaint provided no evidentiary support.
- Borough hired an appraiser who valued the property at $125,000 (matching a private installment contract price); owners dispute valuation and contend higher value based on development potential.
- Trial court, based on papers and oral argument (no testimony), found Borough demonstrated necessity at this early stage and appointed commissioners; defendants appealed and obtained a stay.
- Appellate Division framed the main legal question as what evidentiary showing of "necessity" N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(c) requires when a landowner contests a condemnation in a redevelopment area.
- Court reversed: held Borough failed to present any evidence tying the parcel to a specific redevelopment project or to substantiate the claimed public-parking need; vacated declaration of taking but left open a renewed, properly supported attempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What showing of "necessity" is required under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(c)? | Borough: inclusion in redevelopment area + ordinance suffices; need flexibility to assemble parcels. | Owners: statutory "necessary" requires more than designation; Borough must substantiate need. | If contested, condemnor must identify a particular redevelopment project and present evidence (facts/expert opinion/plans) showing reasonable necessity. |
| Can Borough "land bank" (stockpile) property for unspecified future uses? | Borough: may acquire parcels to assemble for future project needs. | Owners: speculative landbanking is insufficient to meet "necessary" requirement. | Stockpiling/landbanking alone is not enough; speculative future need fails statutory test. |
| Standard of review and burden of proof when necessity is contested | Borough: legislative determination; courts should defer. | Owners: court must review and require proof when challenged. | Determination is legislative in nature with judicial deference, but evidentiary showing must be reasonable; plaintiff bears burden to produce evidence; owner must rebut by preponderance. |
| Do allegations of bad faith or estoppel nullify taking here? | Borough: acted in good faith; no estoppel. | Owners: alleged bad faith in appraisal/negotiations and prior unpublished ruling should estop Borough. | Court affirmed trial court: no bad faith shown; estoppel not applicable; these claims rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallenthin Realty Dev., Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007) (redevelopment designation satisfies public-purpose requirement but record must show more than bland recitation)
- Vineland Constr. Co., Inc. v. Twp. of Pennsauken, 395 N.J. Super. 230 (App. Div. 2007) (necessity under LRHL is a legislative determination entitled to deference but must be reasonable)
- Township of West Orange v. 769 Assocs., 172 N.J. 564 (2002) (due process and public-use limitations on eminent domain)
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) (courts should not second-guess legislative judgments about parcels needed to effectuate integrated redevelopment projects)
- Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) (broad deference to legislative determinations of public purpose in redevelopment)