Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2018

Home

September 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 18 Zoning Bulletin tificate"—like Linden 587 here —"does not have any vested ownership or present possessory interest in a property that is subject to the tax sale certificate." As a result, the trial court determined that Linden 587 "can- not be deemed an interested party" based on its status as a tax lienholder and that, as a consequence, dismissal of the legal challenge was warranted. Cherokee and Linden 587 appealed. They did not challenge the conclusion that Cherokee was not the titled owner of the Neighboring Property. But they did challenge the conclusion that Linden 587 was not an "interested party," and therefore did not have standing. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of their complaint. Cherokee and Linden 587 then petitioned for certification, which the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted. Cherokee and Linden 587 argued that Linden 587, as the holder of tax sale certificates and as a plaintiff in the foreclosure proceedings upon the Neighboring Property, had standing as an "interested party" pursuant to the MLUL (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4) "because its right to acquire or use the [Neighboring Prop- erty] ha[d] been destroyed by the Board's approval of the Goodman plan." DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court, Appellate Division, reversed, and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of New Jersey concluded that Linden 587 did have standing as an "interested party" under the MLUL to challenge the Board's approval of Goodman's application. In so holding, the court analyzed the MLUL's definition of "interested party." Again, the MLUL authorized with standing to appeal a decision of a board of adjustment approving an application for development, "[a]ny interested party ...." (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-17(a).) And, again, the MLUL defined "interested party" as including anyone "whose right to use, acquire, or enjoy property is or may be affected" by a land use application. (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4.) The court emphasized that to have standing to bring a land use challenge, a party must not only meet the definition of "interested party" but must establish that right "is or may be affected." (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4.) Analyzing whether Linden 587, as a tax lienholder on the Neighbor- ing Property, met the requirements for standing, the court first explained that "the absence of title or possession is not determinative of standing." The court emphasized that the MLUL "clearly and unambiguously provides that standing may be afforded to those with a `right to use, acquire, or enjoy property.' (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4.) The court then noted that a purchaser of the tax sale certificate, such as Linden 587 here, has the "right to acquire title" to the property, and "the right to use" the property in a limited manner "in order to make repairs, or abate, remove or correct any condition harmful to the public health, safety and 10 © 2018 Thomson Reuters