TRADEWINDS MARINA, INC. VS. BOROUGH OF SOUTH TOMS RIVER, Â(L-3670-14, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0273-16T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Tradewinds Marina (owner of Block 5, Lot 1) operated a waterfront marina damaged in Superstorm Sandy; property contained derelict vessels, environmental violations, and dilapidated docks and structures.
- NJDEP assessed and later settled administrative penalties; owner Mirta Miller began cleanup and repairs post-Sandy.
- Borough of South Toms River commissioned a redevelopment study (Maser Consulting) and designated Riverfront Property Associates as conditional redeveloper; Riverfront’s agent is related to owners of an adjacent marina with a right of first refusal.
- Planning Board held a public hearing on the study, recommended designation; Council held its own hearing and adopted a resolution designating the Study Area as an area in need of redevelopment and authorizing potential use of eminent domain.
- Tradewinds sued seeking review of the designation, alleging procedural defects (denial of opportunity to present/rebut evidence and cross-examine), conflict of interest, improper condemnation designation, and lack of substantial evidence. Trial court entered judgment for defendants; Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial review as of right applies | Tradewinds argued it was entitled to full judicial review of Board/Council actions | Borough argued standard is deferential review; trial court review appropriate | Court applied standard review (substantial-evidence/deference) and affirmed designation |
| Whether procedures denied fair opportunity to develop the record (cross-examination, experts) | Tradewinds: Board/Council prevented cross-examination and timely presentation of expert rebuttal, denying adequate record | Borough: LRHL does not require trial-like procedures; plaintiff had opportunities to present its facts at Council hearing | Court held LRHL hearings need not permit trial-like cross-examination; plaintiff could (and did) present testimony and rebuttal at Council hearing; no denial of fair process |
| Whether Planning Board failed to recognize condemnation (“condemnation redevelopment area”) ramifications | Tradewinds: Board comments showed unawareness that designation authorized eminent domain, tainting decision | Borough: Board’s role is only to determine need for redevelopment (step one); eminent domain is only triggered later with a redevelopment plan | Court held Board acted within its role; LRHL does not require Board to adjudicate eminent-domain issues at the need-determination stage |
| Whether Redevelopment Study admissibility/consultant testimony deficiency fatally undermined decision | Tradewinds: Study admitted without author (Roberts) available and contained net opinions lacking foundation | Borough: Study was properly considered; Roberts testified to Council; statutory process permits consultant reports and factual presentation | Court held substantial evidence supported the designation; the absence of the report’s author at the Board hearing was not fatal, and plaintiff had chance to rebut |
| Whether designation was motivated by private interest / conflict of interest (conditional redeveloper) | Tradewinds asserted improper private-benefit (Donofrio family ties) and that designation served private, not public, purpose | Borough: Redevelopment determination was based on statutory criteria and public-interest revitalization goals | Court found no abuse of discretion or evidence that decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful; designation upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- 62-64 Main Street, LLC v. Mayor & Council of City of Hackensack, 221 N.J. 129 (discusses presumption of validity and substantial-evidence review for municipal redevelopment designations)
- Levin v. Twp. Comm. of Bridgewater, 57 N.J. 506 (articulates deference to municipal agencies in local land-use decisions)
- R. Neumann & Co. v. City of Hoboken, 437 N.J. Super. 384 (explains municipal agencies’ broad discretion and standard of review)
- Gallenthin Realty Dev., Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (confirms court must uphold blight determinations supported by substantial evidence)
- Rivkin v. Dover Twp. Rent Leveling Bd., 143 N.J. 352 (authorizes setting aside municipal decisions that are arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by evidence)
- Forbes v. Bd. of Tr. of Twp. of S. Orange Vill., 312 N.J. Super. 519 (discusses substantial-evidence inquiry in municipal decision review)