Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 18 sale agreement was contingent upon Goodman getting City approval to redevelop the Property. In the meantime, ownership of the Neighboring Property transferred to Cherokee LCP Land, LLC ("Cherokee"). In 2013, Cherokee Equi- ties, LLC purchased three tax sale certificates on the Neighboring Prop- erty from the City, initiated tax foreclosure proceedings, and assigned the tax sale certificates to Linden 587, LLC ("Linden 587"). In May 2014, Goodman submitted a site plan application for development of industrial, warehouse and distribution space on the Property to the City's Planning Board (the "Board"). The Board ap- proved the application. Thereafter, Cherokee and Linden 587 challenged the Board's ap- proval of Goodman's application. They alleged that Goodman's proposed project would "eliminate certain points of access to the Neighboring Property, interfere with an existing easement on the Prop- erty, and substantially modify storm water management on the Property." In response to the legal challenge, Goodman and LPH argued that Cherokee and Linden 587 lacked standing (i.e., the legal right to bring the action). The Board joined in their argument. With regard to standing, New Jersey's Municipal Land Use Law ("MLUL") provides that "[a]ny interested party may appeal to the governing body any final decision of a board of adjustment approving an application for development." (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-17(a).) The MLUL defines "interested party" broadly to include "any person . . . whose right to use, acquire, or enjoy property is or may be affected by any ac- tion taken under [the MLUL]." (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4.) Goodman, LPH, and the Board argued that Cherokee and Linden 587 lacked standing to challenge the Board's approval of Goodman's application because they were not "interested" parties under the MLUL. They maintained that Cherokee was not the titled owner of the Neighboring Property, and therefore was not an "interested party." And, they argued that Linden 587 was not an "interested party" because it did not hold title to or a possessory interest in the Neighboring Property. The trial court agreed that Cherokee and Linden 587 lacked standing to challenge the Board's approval. The trial court found that Cherokee was not the titled owner of the Neighboring Property and therefore did not have an interest in the Neighboring Property. The trial court concluded that "Linden 587 does not have a present interest in the Neighboring Property as its ownership rights, which include the use and enjoyment of the property, are conditioned upon its right of redemption which it has failed to exercise." The trial court found "that until redemption and entry of foreclosure, the holder of a tax sale cer- © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9