SAMUEL TRIPSAS v. BOROUGH OF ORADELL (L-2854-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0649-20
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Mar 25, 2022Background
- After Mount Laurel IV, Borough of Oradell sought declaratory relief and settled with Fair Share Housing Center in 2018; settlement required adoption of a Housing Element and Fair Share Plan (HEFSP).
- Planning Board adopted the HEFSP in November 2018; the Borough later adopted Ordinances 19-03 (two Affordable Housing residential zones) and 19-04 (Central Business District (CBD) Overlay along Kinderkamack Road).
- A 2010 Historic Preservation Plan Element (HPPE) identified historic resources near the CBD; the Van Buskirk House lay within an area rezoned by Ordinance 19-03.
- Mayor Dianne Didio served on a Planning Board subcommittee from 2016 until she recused herself in March 2017 for a conflict of interest; plaintiffs allege improper participation and secret subcommittee meetings.
- Plaintiffs (Tripsas and Citizens Action to Preserve Oradell) sued in May 2019 alleging OPMA violations, mayoral conflict tainting the process, inconsistency with the HPPE, and failure to comply with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62(a); the Law Division dismissed and the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of challenge to Planning Board action / OPMA claims | Plaintiffs argued the process was secret/tainted so statute of limitations did not begin | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to file within 45 days and had constructive notice | Court: plaintiffs' challenge to Board action/OPMA was untimely under 45-day rule; nevertheless addressed merits and found no continuing violation |
| Whether Subcommittee meetings violated OPMA (quorum/meeting) | Subcommittee meetings were secret, constituted effective majority, and circumvented OPMA | Subcommittee was an informal/advisory body; no quorum and issues were later presented in public Board meetings | Court: no evidence of quorum or final action taken in secret; no OPMA violation shown |
| Mayor's conflict and whether recusal tainted the process | Mayor Didio's 14-month participation with a conflict tainted the process and recusal did not cure it | Mayor recused in March 2017 and did not participate in later HEFSP or ordinance adoption; no evidence she influenced final actions | Court: plaintiffs' allegations speculative; record shows early recusal and no participation in adoption; no taint established |
| Ordinance inconsistency with HPPE and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62(a) compliance | Ordinance 19-04 (CBD overlay) conflicts with HPPE; governing body failed to follow 40:55D-62(a) (explain if inconsistent) | 40:55D-62(a) requires explanation only when inconsistent with the land use or housing elements; HPPE is discretionary and does not trigger the statute; Board found consistency | Court: statute applies to land use and housing elements only; plaintiffs did not claim inconsistency with those elements; Board's consistency determination is entitled to deference; ordinance upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 & 5:97 (Mount Laurel IV), 221 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2015) (context of municipal affordable-housing obligations)
- Kean Fed'n of Tchrs. v. Morell, 233 N.J. 566 (N.J. 2018) (OPMA’s scope re subcommittees and public access)
- Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (N.J. 1995) (deference to planning board consistency findings)
- Neu v. Planning Bd. of Union, 352 N.J. Super. 544 (App. Div. 2002) (private premeeting did not violate OPMA where actions were later public)
- Shipyard Assocs., LP v. City of Hoboken, 242 N.J. 23 (N.J. 2020) (statutory interpretation de novo)
- Willoughby v. Wolfson Grp., Inc., 332 N.J. Super. 223 (App. Div. 2000) (failure to comply with MLUL procedural requirements can invalidate an ordinance)
- Myers v. Ocean City Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 439 N.J. Super. 96 (App. Div. 2015) (application of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62(a) when ordinance is inconsistent with master plan elements)