City of Trenton v. 222 West Associates Fund

Citations: 350 N.J. Super. 600; 796 A.2d 913; 2002 N.J. Super. LEXIS 226

Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; May 13, 2002; New Jersey; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court's opinion, delivered by Judge Axelrad, addresses an appeal by property owner 222 West Associates regarding a condemnation action initiated by the City of Trenton. The central issue is the valuation of the property, specifically the height limitation imposed, which is set at four and one-half stories instead of the previously approved nine stories. The property, located at 222 West State Street, includes the historic Roebling Mansion. 

In 1985, the City enacted ordinance 85-108, designating the property as blighted and approving the Roebling Mansion Redevelopment Plan, which included plans for a commercial office building and parking. In 1987, an amended plan (Ordinance 87-67) was passed, allowing for a nine-story office building with rear surface parking. Preliminary site plan approval for this development was granted to 222 West on September 10, 1987, allowing for a nine-story structure attached to the existing three-story building.

The legislative backdrop includes the Capital City Redevelopment Corporation Act (CCRC), enacted in 1987, which recognized Trenton's unique status and need for redevelopment, establishing the CCRC to coordinate development efforts. The CCRC was tasked with creating a twenty-year Capital City Renaissance Plan, which was to be developed in consultation with local planning authorities and to ensure consistency in future development plans within the district. The Renaissance Plan, adopted on October 30, 1989, recommended a four and one-half story height limit along State Street, which is the basis for the controversy in the current case.

On January 4, 1990, the City of Trenton adopted ordinance 90-9 to amend its zoning and land development regulations, aligning them with the Capital City Renaissance Plan. This included amendment 19-405D, which established height limits for business buildings. On April 25, 1991, the City updated its Master Plan's land use element, designating a low-density downtown area allowing a maximum height of 4.5 stories with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to four, encompassing sites like the Roebling Mansion. Subsequent to this, on March 6, 1997, the City enacted Ordinance 97-41, enabling property acquisition by condemnation. A Declaration of Taking was filed, and a valuation date of March 6, 1997, was set by Judge Feinberg.

In 2001, 222 West sought partial summary judgment to value the property based on a previously approved nine-story site plan, while the City sought to exclude this approval from consideration. The motions were heard by Judge Grail, who ruled that the property should be valued without the nine-story approval, emphasizing the influence of the 1990 and 1991 zoning amendments and the Capital City Redevelopment Act. The judge barred related expert testimony from both parties. After 222 West's motion for reconsideration was denied, they appealed, raising multiple points regarding the trial court's interpretation of approval lapses and the effect of the redevelopment plan on their preliminary approval. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing with Judge Grail’s rationale that the property should be valued without the nine-story height limitation, based on the existing law as of the taking date in March 1997.

The local zoning ordinance 19-12.4 mandates site plan approval for construction permit issuance. The property owner did not seek an extension for preliminary site plan approval or apply for any necessary modifications or permits. Under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-49, the property owner enjoyed protection from adverse zoning amendments for three years post-preliminary approval. An extension was available until December 31, 1996, under the Permit Extension Act. After the emergency extension period, the statutory protection expired, meaning the City could not grant final site plan approval for the nine-story office building as of December 31, 1997. The court in Palatine I clarified that once statutory protections are exhausted, preliminary approvals are vulnerable to zoning law changes. Although preliminary approvals remain valid indefinitely, they only protect against zoning changes for a specified term. By March 6, 1997, the municipal zoning laws restricted construction to a maximum of four and one-half stories, invalidating 222 West's claim that the Roebling Plan remained unchanged. The amendments to the zoning ordinance and master plan were enacted to align with the Capital City Renaissance Plan, effectively amending the Roebling Plan where inconsistencies existed. Redevelopment plans can be revised, and Judge Grail noted that no special procedures are required for such revisions. The city's amendments to the master plan took precedence and specifically addressed height limits for Roebling Mansion, indicating the city’s intention to avoid inconsistencies between the Renaissance Plan and the Roebling Plan. Following these amendments, the Redevelopment and Housing Law was enacted, repealing earlier statutes related to redevelopment plans.

N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7C mandates specific procedures for amending a redevelopment plan, differing from the 1992 statute. Defendants, 222 West State Street Associates, contend that the 1990 and 1991 amendments to Trenton’s zoning law and master plans did not effectively amend the Roebling Mansion Redevelopment Plan. However, the interpretation of the statutes indicates that these amendments did alter the zoning and plans related to the property, rendering the approval for a nine-story building inconsistent with the zoning and master plans in effect at that time. Granting approval contrary to the Capital City Renaissance Plan would conflict with the state's comprehensive scheme, undermining uniformity and the objectives of the Capital City Redevelopment Corporation Act. The approved height of nine stories is directly at odds with the 4.5-story limit specified in the Capital City Renaissance Plan. Consequently, the City of Trenton has no authority to grant approvals that conflict with this plan, leading to the granting of summary judgment in favor of the City. The judge clarified that the 1991 amendments did not solely amend the redevelopment plan; rather, the combination of the Capital City Redevelopment Plan, the zoning ordinance amendments, and the master plan amendments collectively amended the Roebling Mansion Redevelopment Plan. The court upheld that the planning board and municipality followed appropriate procedures for these amendments. The ruling was affirmed.