Supreme Court allows enlargement of time for land use appeals

The New Jersey Supreme Court allowed the enlargement of the 45 days filing requirement to file an appeal of a land use decision. In the case of Hopewell Valley Citizens' Group, Inc. v. Berwind Property Group Development Co., Justice Long, writing for the Court considered the issue of whether an objector to a planning board’s grant of site plan approval is entitled, in the “interest of justice,” to an enlargement of time under the Civil Practice Rules. These rules require an interested party to file an appeal of a planning board approval within 45 days from the date of publication of the notice of decision.

The Supreme Court held that the circumstances presented in this case warrant enlargement of the forty-five-day period because “it is manifest that the interest of justice so requires.”

The Municipal Land Use Law provides that “[t]he period of time in which an appeal of the decision may be made shall run from the first publication of the decision, whether arranged by the municipality or the applicant.” N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(i). Appeals from local land use decisions are accomplished by actions in lieu of prerogative writs. The Civil Practice Rules set forth the time limitations on the institution of such actions. Those rules (a) acknowledges a general limitations period of forty-five days “after the accrual of the right to the review, hearing or relief claimed . . . .” The portion of the rules relating to appeals of land use decisions, provides that no action shall be commenced “after 45 days from the publication of a notice once in the official newspaper of the municipality or a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality . . . .” A subsection of the rule provides: “The court may enlarge the period of time where it is manifest that the interest of justice so requires.”

It is undisputed that in this case the objector failed to meet the deadline imposed by the Rules insofar as it did not file its complaint within forty-five days of the first notice published by the developer. The Court’s task is to determine whether the objector is entitled, in the “interest of justice,” to an enlargement of time under the Rule and, hence, to an adjudication of the merits of its claim.

The Rule’s language suggests that a court has discretion to enlarge a time frame when it perceives a clear potential for injustice. The Rule was aimed at those who slumber on their rights. Certain cases are excepted from the rule governing limitation of actions. Included in that category were three traditional types of challenges: “important and novel constitutional questions”; “informal or ex parte determinations of legal questions by administrative officials”; and “important public rather than private interests which require adjudication or clarification.” The Court recognized that, as a general proposition, “ignorance of the existence of a cause of action will not prevent the running of a period of limitations except when there has been concealment.”

The court found that the Plaintiff was entirely reasonable in calling the Board Secretary for information on the date of publication of the notice of decision to determine the date of expiration of the period of time to appeal the land use board decision. Plaintiff was inadvertently misled. To be sure, the developer was blameless, but so was plaintiff. Further, the six-day delay was such that defendants could not have suffered prejudice sufficient to warrant the barring of this litigation. The Court held that this was the exact type of circumstances that the Rules were designed to address.

The decision stands for the proposition that developers can no longer rely on the time limitations for appeals to be strictly applied where an objector has not slept on its rights if such violation of the time limitation was based upon a mistake coupled with an objector’s reasonable reliance. The decision also points to the importance of a developer’s actions. In this instance, had the developer sent the publication to the objector, the result would have been different.

Offshore Wind Projects Obtain Expedited Approval Process

Offshore wind projects are inching closer to fruition.  As described in an article on today, the federal Department of the Interior reported yesterday that portions of the continental shelf off the New Jersey coast are one of several "high-priority" areas in the Mid-Atlantic that would get expedited review for regulatory approval.  In an apparent effort to streamline the wind energy approval processes, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement will prepare broad regional environmental assessments as opposed to the previous requirement that each individual wind developer prepare its own study.  As the article notes, the policy change is expected to shave about two years off of the nearly decade long approval process.

Notice of 2011 property tax assessments are "in the mail"

All taxpayers should expect to receive soon their notice of assessment for the 2011 tax year.  By statute, every assessor, prior to February 1st, must notify each taxpayer by mail of the current asssessment and the preceding year's taxes.  The notice is typically in the form of a postcard and will contain information instructing taxpayers on how to appeal their assessment.   

Note, however, that the notice is sent to the addressee of record, which may not be the physical address of the subject property.  Often times for commercial properties, the postcards are mailed to the home office, and can be inadvertently discarded or ignored. 

The deadline to appeal this year's tax assessment is Friday, April 1, 2011.  In select municipalities, that deadline may be extended beyond April 1st, in which case the taxpayer would receive notice at the address of record.