Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bloomfield Joint Venture v. Planning Board of Township of Bloomfield

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

August 1, 2013

BLOOMFIELD JOINT VENTURE, A Partnership, FARRAND STREET ASSOCIATES, A Partnership, BLOOMFIELD DAVAL CORP., BLOOMFIELD TRANSIT VILLAGE I, LLC, BLOOMFIELD TRANSIT VILLAGE II, LLC, BLOOMFIELD TRANSIT VILLAGE III, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD, BLOOMFIELD PARKING AUTHORITY, and BLOOMFIELD CENTER URBAN RENEWAL, LLC, Defendants-Respondents.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted April 16, 2013

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-6372-11.

Budin, Greenman & Greenman, attorneys for appellants (Arnold I. Budin, on the brief).

Law Office of Michael S. Rubin, LLC, attorneys for respondent Planning Board of the Township of Bloomfield (Michael S. Rubin, on the brief).

McManimon, Scotland & Baumann LLC, attorneys for respondent Bloomfield Parking Authority (William W. Northgrave and Kevin P. McManimon, on the brief).

Inglesino, Pearlman, Wyciskala & Taylor, LLC, attorneys for respondent Bloomfield Center Urban Renewal, LLC (John P.Inglesino, of counsel and on the brief; Grace Chun, on the brief).

Before Judges Messano and Lihotz.

PER CURIAM

By its memorializing resolution of June 14, 2011, defendant Planning Board of the Township of Bloomfield (the Board) granted preliminary and final site plan approval, major subdivision approval and exceptions from an approved redevelopment plan to defendants-applicants Bloomfield Center Urban Renewal, LLC, (BCUR) and Bloomfield Parking Authority (the Parking Authority). Plaintiffs, owners of properties located in and near the redevelopment area, filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, contending the Board's action was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

After considering oral argument, the Law Division judge issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, accompanied by a "written addendum" explaining her rationale. This appeal followed.

We have considered the arguments now raised in light of the record and applicable legal standards. We affirm.

I.

The essential facts and procedural history are largely undisputed. In November 2009, the Bloomfield Township council authorized the Board to consider whether certain identified properties were "an area in need of redevelopment pursuant to the New Jersey Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, " N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -73 (the LRHL). The Board retained a professional planner to review, in particular, a triangle-shaped area designated as "Area 3."[1] The planning report concluded that Area 3 met the criteria set forth in the LRHL.

After two public hearings, on September 23, 2010, the Board recommended that "Area 3 be designated as an area in need of redevelopment."[2] On October 18, the mayor and council adopted the Board's recommendation and authorized the Board to "cause a redevelopment plan to be prepared for Area ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.