311 A.3d 508
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2024Background
- Sackman Enterprises, Inc. sought approval to develop a mixed-use property in the Seaport Village Redevelopment Area in Belmar, NJ.
- The property was subject to a Redevelopment Plan requiring either compliance with a floor area ratio (FAR) or provision of sufficient on-site parking (two spaces per residential unit).
- Sackman repeatedly revised its concept plans, ultimately seeking to use electric vehicle (EV) parking credits under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-66.20 to meet parking requirements.
- The Borough of Belmar rejected all concept plans, citing non-compliance with FAR and/or parking requirements, and asserting EV credits could not be used at the concept plan stage or to exceed statutory limits.
- Sackman filed suit, seeking a court order requiring the Borough to apply EV credits in consistency determinations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Borough.
- On appeal, Sackman challenged both the timing and application of EV credits and how rounding of EV credit calculations should affect the ten percent parking reduction limit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must EV credits be applied at the concept plan stage? | Redevelopers should be allowed to apply EV credits during consistency review to meet parking requirements. | Credits only apply at preliminary site plan approval, not earlier. | Credits must be applied at consistency review stage. |
| How should EV credit calculations be rounded? | Any non-whole number should be rounded up to the next whole parking spot. | Rounding up only if decimal is 0.5 or more; otherwise round down. | All decimals must be rounded up, per statutory language. |
| Can rounding of EV credits allow reduction >10%? | Statute allows rounding up even if it slightly exceeds 10% parking reduction. | Rounding up cannot be used to bypass the 10% reduction limit. | Rounding cannot make total reduction exceed 10% limit. |
| Was Borough’s rejection arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable? | Borough’s refusal to consider EV credits at concept stage was arbitrary and prevented compliant plans. | Borough properly applied statutes and rejected noncompliant plans. | Borough's actions were not arbitrary or unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Milford Mill 128, LLC v. Borough of Milford, 400 N.J. Super. 96 (App. Div. 2008) (municipality may require consistency review before Planning Board submission)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (appellate court reviews legal issues de novo)