Just a friendly reminder that applications for Farmland Assessment are due by August 1, 2010. Late applications will be rejected, which could impose a significant tax liability on the unsuspecting property owner. You can read more about farmland assessments at: http://njrealestatepropertylawanddevelopment.foxrothschild.com/2009/07/articles/tax-appeals/applications-for-farmland-assessment-due-august-1st/
On June 7, 2010 the Division of Land Use Regulation of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection adopted amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Rules. The amendments foster and promote development in the Coastal Zone. The amendments impact the Bay Island Rule by exempting from the restrictive requirements of that rule Bader Field (the now closed Atlantic City Municipal Airport) in order to allow intense resort development; the Atlantic City Rule to modify the list of protected streets ends in the City of Atlantic City by adding additional street ends and allowing the closure of other streets based upon recent proposed commercial and casino development; and the Traffic Rule to modify the parking requirements for residential development to permit one parking space per unit for those units 650 square feet or smaller within one-half mile of an oceanfront beach or dune. If a unit is larger than 650 square feet, then two parking spaces per unit are required. These amendments facilitate coastal zone development demonstrating flexibility while attempting to provide adequate parking for residential development in crowded coastal areas.
The NJ Senate adopted S1 a comprehensive reform of the Fair Housing Act, N. J. S. A. 52:27D-301 et seq. S1 sponsored by Sen. Lesniak, passed the Senate by a vote of 28-3, with 9 senators not voting (click link for press release). S1 is eliminates the Council on Affordable Housing ("COAH") and delegates the responsibility to monitor municipal affordable housing compliance to the State Department of Community Affairs. DCA's function will be only the review of municipal housing data and compliance with S1's standards for municipal housing compliance, with no mediation or other dispute resolution power.
S1 creates a legislative presumption of compliance regarding the Mt. Laurel constitutional obligation. The presumption of validity would apply to all municipalities where (1) there are at least 33% multifamily units as a percentage of the entire municipal housing stock or (2) 7.5% deed restricted affordable housing as a percentage of municipal housing stock.
The Bill does not take into account municipal zoning ordinances and does away with the concept of zoning providing a realistic opportunity for the creation of a municipalities fair share of the regional affordable housing need. In fact, S1 expressly eliminates any consideration of regional housing obligations and fosters the pre Mt Laurel I concept of zoning as having to only consider the universe that exists within the municipal boundary, as if each of New jersey's 566 towns exists on an island isolated from the greater regional economy.
S1 is unconstitutional on its face
The Bill has drawn extensive criticism from affordable housing groups, who correctly claim that S1 will result in less affordable housing opportunities than under the present COAH process. This Bill is so seriously flawed that it is highly unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny, as demonstrated by teh NJBA analysis of the Bill. If adopted, the result of S1 will be more litigation and more delay in the creation of decent affordable housing, at a time when affordable housing is in great demand, given the Great Recession's impact on employment.
We will keep you apprised of the Legislature's consideration of S1 and the court actions that will inevitably follow... stay tuned.
Yet another Tax Court decision applying N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 (the Exemption Statute) was issued that should give pause to
“The court found that portions of buildings owned by
Continue Reading...
A recent article in the Newark Star-Ledger highlighted the influx of solar energy projects in New Jersey and the financial incentives driving those projects. Notable aspects of the article include:
While time is running short, it is not too late to consider your rooftop for a solar panel installation. The Stimulus Act requires that the project commence construction in 2010 in order to claim the 30% payment.
In the New Jersey Appellate Division case of Suburban Jewelers vs. City of Plainfield, the Appellate Division upheld Plainfield's redevelopment designation of a portion of Plainfield's Central Business District. A number of commercial property owners appealed the City's redevelopment designation contending that the designation adversely affected their properties. The property owners argued that the City failed to make the constitutionally required finding of "blight", the findings were based upon a net opinion, and the City planning board failed to consider the benefits of the present uses of the properties. In addition they argued that the trial court failed to consider the opinion of another judge in the same vicinage. The court rejected all the arguments advanced by the property owners.
The Court found:
1. Gallenthin principles must be followed in determining whether an area is blighted.
2. The City's planning consultants did a thorough review of the area investigating the conditions of each property including any deterioration, use, occupancy and vacancy of each property, site characteristics including drainage, operations, parking, and lighting, tax payment history, police incidents and crime rate, and any unsafe conditions and code violations relating to each property.
3. The City's determination that the study area is in need of redevelopment comes invested with a presumption of validity.
4. While a net opinion is not adequate, the City's report contained detailed factual findings rather than a mere recitation of the statutory criteria and met the "substantial evidence standard" because the report discussed specific conditions of each property and explained in detail why those conditions rose to the level of obsolescence etc. and explained why those conditions were detrimental to the safety, health and welfare of the community. Those conditions were found to have a detrimental effect on surrounding property.
5. The Court reaffirmed the Gallenthin standard that " while the meaning of blight has evolved and broadened it still has a negative connotation and retains its essential characteristic: deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding properties."
6. The Court did not require the planning board to consider the benefits of the current uses of the study area.
Accordingly this case upholds a redevelopment designation when there is a proper study and reinforces that the redevelopment decision is subject to a presumption of validity which will be upheld so long as the decision is supported by substantial credible evidence.
On May 5, 2010, Governor Christie signed legislation that represents a shift in the long-standing right of a municipality to amend or alter its land development regulations after an applicant has filed a land development application. The legislation, S-82, modifies the development application process under the Municipal Land Use Law to afford significant benefits to developers.
S-82, commonly referred to as the “time of application” or “time of decision” legislation, provides that a land development application will be governed by the municipal development regulations in effect at the time that the application is submitted, and any provisions of any ordinance adopted subsequent to the submission date are not applicable to the application filed prior. However, the new legislation does not extend to ordinances that are adopted relative to health and public safety, and thus an applicant will continue to be subject to the reach of such ordinances to the extent applicable. The legislation affects development applications submitted on or after May 5, 2011, which gives municipalities time to update their Master Plans and zoning ordinances in anticipation of the new procedures.
Although the legislation does not guarantee in any way that an application will be granted, it clarifies the development regulations by which the application will be examined. As Governor Christie noted, “[t]his legislation makes common sense changes to improve the application process and move New Jersey in the right direction of providing a friendlier environment for job creation, while keeping safeguards for public health and safety in place."
A copy of the legislation can be viewed by clicking on the following link.
By now, much has been written about the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009. In fact, this legislation has spawned such abbreviations and acronyms such as: ARRA, the Recovery Act, or quite simply, the "Stimulus". Whichever your preference, the purposes of this legislation included the preservation and creation of jobs, the promotion of economic recovery in the near term, and the investment in infrastructure that will provide long-term benefits.
Of the Recovery Act's initiatives, most people are familiar with the $8,000 homebuyer credit that just expired on April 30, 2010 or a deduction for sales taxes on qualifying new car purchases. For the real estate development community or proponents of renewable energy, one of the Recovery Act's mandates has generated (no pun intended) little press but packs a big punch.
Section 1603 of the Recovery Act appropriated grant monies to reimburse qualified applicants for up to 30% of the construction costs for specified renewable energy property. Provided that the property is placed into service by the termination date provided in the Recovery Act, the Treasury Department will pay the credit amount to applicant within 60 days of the date the application is deemed complete. Applicants can also assign their rights to the payment to a bank or financial institution.
But, the window is rapidly closing on this extraordinary financial opportunity. The application filing deadline expires on October 1, 2011. However, construction on a project must commence in 2010 in order to qualify for the Section 1603 payment, even though the application may not be submitted.
N.J.S.A. 54:3-21 is the jurisdictional statute for tax appeals. It was recently amended by L. 2009, c.251, effective January 16, 2010. This amendment is noteworthy as it raises the floor for filing direct real property assessment challenges in the Tax Court. Previously, a complaint could not be filed in the Tax Court and the County Board of Taxation by passed if the assessed value exceeded $750,000. As of January 16, 2010, the assessed value for a property must exceed $1 million to trigger the court’s original jurisdiction. R. 8:3-5 of New Jersey’s Rules of Court were changed as of February 9th to conform.
Taxpayers are not remediless if the property’s assessment is $1 million or less. In that case, a petition, not a complaint, can be filed with the County Board of Taxation of the county in which the property is located. The procedural requirements for County Boards differ from board to board as well as with the procedural requirements of the Tax Court. However, in either forum, a taxpayer must comply with several challenges including: (1) the burden of proof on value, (2) Chapter 91, and (3) Chapter 123. Failure to comply with any of these will result in dismissal of the taxpayer’s petition or complaint, as the case may be.
The specifics of N.J.S.A. 54:3-21 (the “Statute”) remain the same:
It is well established that this Statute is jurisdictional and therefore filing deadlines cannot be waived. An untimely filing will result in a dismissal of an appeal no matter how meritorious. Finally, the appeal process established by this Statute does not apply to appeals of an assessment or an exemption based on a financial agreement controlled by the Long Term Tax Exemption Law.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to consult Jeffrey M. Hall at (609) 895-6755 or jhall@foxrothschild.com.
As noted on the official website for the New Jersey Tax Court, due to recently enacted legislation, any local property tax appeals that are not added or omitted assessments may be filed directly with the Tax Court only if the original assessment exceeds $1,000,000.
The Assembly Committee that reviewed the legislation and recommended its adoption noted that "[i]ncreasing the assessed value requirement will decrease the overburdened Tax Court's caseload and allow these cases to be heard by county boards of taxation, which are better equipped to handle a large volume of tax appeals." For what it is worth, the prior $750,000 threshold had not been increased since it was first established in 1979.
The legislation increases the threshold for making a direct filing from $750,000 to $1,000,000. Therefore, any taxpayer whose assessment is below the minimum threshold may still challenge its tax assessment by filing a Petition of Appeal with the County Board of Taxation in the county where the property is located. However, those taxpayers whose assessments exceed $1,000,000 may either file a Petition at the County Board level or file a direct appeal with the Tax Court. There are advantages and disadvantages with both approaches.
Notices of the tax assessments are typically mailed on or around February 1st.
Enter keywords:
