NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3295-16T3
GEORGE A. GALLENTHIN, III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOROUGH OF PAULSBORO, PAULSBORO
PLANNING/LAND USE BOARD, and
PAULSBORO'S COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
GARY C. STEVENSON, PAULSBORO MAYOR;
JOHN A. GIOVANNITTI, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT; and COUNCILPERSONS: ERIC
DITONNO, ALFONSO G. GIAMPOLA, LARRY
HAYNES, SR., THEODORE D. HOLLOWAY,
II, and JOE KIDD, individually,
jointly, severally and in the
alternative,
Defendants-Respondents.
______________________________________
Argued May 30, 2018 - Decided June 26, 2018
Before Judges Gilson and Mayer.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Gloucester County, Docket No.
L-1407-16.
George A. Gallenthin, III, appellant, argued
the cause pro se.
M. James Maley, Jr. argued the cause for
respondents Borough of Paulsboro, Gary C.
Stevenson, John A. Giovannitti, Eric Ditonno,
Alfonso G. Giampolo, Larry Haynes, Sr.,
Theodore D. Holloway, II, and Joe Kidd (Law
Offices of Maley & Associates, PC, attorneys;
M. James Maley, Jr., on the brief).
Law Offices of John A. Alice, attorneys for
respondent Paulsboro Planning/Land Use Board,
join in the brief of respondents Borough of
Paulsboro, Gary C. Stevenson, John A.
Giovannitti, Eric Ditonno, Alfonso G.
Giampola, Larry Haynes, Sr., Theodore D.
Holloway, II, and Joe Kidd.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff George A. Gallenthin, III, appeals from orders
dated March 10, 2017 and March 17, 2017, dismissing his complaint
in lieu of prerogative writs. We affirm.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendants Borough of
Paulsboro (Borough), Paulsboro Council (Council), the Mayor of
Paulsboro,1 and the Paulsboro Planning/Land Use Board (Board),
seeking to: (1) void Borough Ordinance 11.16; (2) enjoin
defendants from "deriving any and all financial benefit as a result
of [d]efendants designating [p]laintiff's property as an area in
need of rehabilitation"; and (3) award damages in the amount of
$10,000 per month since the passage of Ordinance 11.16.
1
We refer to the Borough, the Council, and the Mayor collectively
as the Governing Body.
2 A-3295-16T3
The genesis of this appeal is the designation of the entire
Borough as an area in need of rehabilitation. To implement that
designation, the Governing Body passed Ordinance 11.16, which
adopted a "Redevelopment Plan for the Borough of Paulsboro" (Plan).
Plaintiff, who owns several parcels of land in the Borough, claimed
Ordinance 11.16 and the Plan amount to an unconstitutional taking
of his property.
In support of his current litigation against defendants,
plaintiff relied on Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough
of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007) (Gallenthin I). In that case,
plaintiff appealed a municipal ordinance designating his property
as an area in need of redevelopment. The Court in Gallenthin I
held that the Borough's ordinance, allowing redevelopment of land
in a stagnant condition, did not authorize the redevelopment of
plaintiff's property simply because it was not fully productive.
Gallenthin, 191 N.J. at 372. The Gallenthin I decision addressed
areas in need of redevelopment, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, not areas in
need of rehabilitation, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-14.
The background describing plaintiff's earlier litigation
against defendants is set forth in Gallenthin I. We recite only
the facts relevant to plaintiff's argument on this appeal.
On August 1, 2016, the Board recommended the Governing Body
adopt Resolution 157.16, designating the entire Borough as "an
3 A-3295-16T3
area in need of rehabilitation" in accordance with N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-14. On September 6, 2016, the Governing Body voted to
designate the entire Borough as an area in need of rehabilitation,
finding "more than half of the housing stock in the [Borough] is
at least [fifty] years old and a program of rehabilitation as
defined in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3 is expected to prevent further
deterioration and promote overall development and improvement of
the community."2
On September 6, 2016, a draft of the Plan was prepared. On
September 20, 2016, the Governing Body authorized the Board to
review the Plan. On October 3, 2016, the Board recommended the
Governing Body adopt the Plan.
The Governing Body held a public meeting on October 4, 2016
to address the Plan. At this meeting, plaintiff requested his
property be exempt from the rehabilitation designation. On that
same date, the Governing Body passed Ordinance 11.16, which
adopted the Plan.
2
Resolution 157.16, designating the Borough as an area in need
of rehabilitation, is not the subject of plaintiff's appeal.
Plaintiff appeals the approval of Ordinance 11.16, which adopted
the Plan. Thus, plaintiff's arguments related to Resolution 157.16
are waived. See Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules,
cmt. 6.1 on R. 2:5-1(a) (2018) ("[I]t is clear that it is only the
judgments or orders or parts thereof designated in the notice of
appeal which are subject to the appeal process and review.").
4 A-3295-16T3
On November 14, 2016, plaintiff filed a verified complaint,
action in lieu of prerogative writs, and an order to show cause
(OTSC), challenging the adoption of Ordinance 11.16.3 Plaintiff
alleged the Governing Body's approval of Ordinance 11.16 was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable because the Plan is a "net
opinion of the Borough's engineer," and the Governing Body's
decision was not supported by substantial credible evidence.
On or about February 8, 2017, the Governing Body filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a
claim. The Board joined in the Governing Body's motion. On March
3, 2017, the trial judge heard oral argument on both plaintiff's
OTSC, seeking to preclude the Borough from designating his property
an area in need of rehabilitation, and defendants' motions to
dismiss. In opposing defendants' motions, plaintiff claimed the
Plan redesignated his property as an area in need of redevelopment
contrary to the Court's decision in Gallenthin I.
After considering the parties' arguments and reviewing the
written submissions, the trial judge issued an order and written
opinion dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice as to the
Governing Body. On March 17, 2017, the trial judge issued an
order dismissing the complaint with prejudice as to the Board on
3
Although plaintiff is self-represented, we note that he is
licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania.
5 A-3295-16T3
the same bases as her dismissal of the claims against the Governing
Body.
The judge dismissed plaintiff's complaint, as a matter of
law, finding that the Borough's adoption of Ordinance 11.16,
deeming the entire municipality as an area in need of
rehabilitation, was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
The judge also distinguished Ordinance 11.16 from the
redevelopment ordinance challenged in Gallenthin I. She explained
that an area in need of rehabilitation is governed by N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-14, and the taking of private property by eminent domain
is prohibited. On the other hand, the judge reasoned that an area
in need of redevelopment is governed by N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, and
permits the acquisition of private property through eminent
domain. The judge concluded plaintiff failed to appreciate the
distinction between the two statutes. After reviewing the
rehabilitation statute and the challenged ordinance, the judge
concluded that the Plan adopted by Ordinance 11.16 was consistent
with N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-14.
"[A] municipality's adoption of . . . a redevelopment plan[]
is a discretionary decision . . . ." Powerhouse Arts Dist.
Neighborhood Ass'n v. City Council of Jersey City, 413 N.J. Super.
322, 332 (App. Div. 2010). "A court will uphold such an exercise
of discretion unless 'arbitrary or capricious, contrary to law,
6 A-3295-16T3
or unconstitutional.'" Ibid. (quoting Downtown Residents for Sane
Dev. v. City of Hoboken, 242 N.J. Super. 329, 332 (App. Div.
1990)).
"Actions of a [municipal body] are presumed to be valid and
the party attacking such action has the burden of proving
otherwise." N.Y. SMSA Ltd. P'ship v. Bd. of Adjustment of Twp.
of Bernards, 324 N.J. Super. 149, 163 (App. Div. 1999). "When we
consider an appeal of a trial court's review of a municipal board's
action, we are bound by the same standard as the trial court."
Cohen v. Bd. of Adjustment of Borough of Rumsen, 396 N.J. Super.
608, 614–15 (App. Div. 2007). However, we review interpretations
of law de novo. See Nuckel v. Borough of Little Ferry Planning
Bd., 208 N.J. 95, 102 (2011). Likewise, a trial court's decision
on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is reviewed
de novo. Smith v. Datla, 451 N.J. Super. 82, 88 (App. Div. 2017).
Plaintiff argues the Governing Body failed to meet each of
the statutory criteria for adopting a redevelopment plan in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7(a) because the Plan merely
recites the applicable criteria without explaining, in detail, the
precise nature of the Plan with respect to each element of the
statute. The trial judge analyzed the Plan under each of the
statute's requirements and determined the Plan met the criteria
of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7(a).
7 A-3295-16T3
Having reviewed the record, we agree with the judge's
conclusion that the Plan is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law for the reasons expressed in her written opinion dated
March 10, 2017, supplementing her decision from the bench on March
3, 2017. See also Bryant v. City of Atl. City, 309 N.J. Super.
596, 619 (App. Div. 1998) (requiring only an outline of a plan's
objectives).
We next consider plaintiff's argument that Ordinance 11.16
amounts to an unconstitutional taking of his property. Plaintiff's
property was designated as an area in need of rehabilitation,
which precludes the municipality from exercising eminent domain
as to his property. See N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-15 ("With respect to a
redevelopment project in an area in need of
rehabilitation, . . . the municipality shall not have the power
to take or acquire private property by condemnation in furtherance
of a redevelopment plan . . . ."). The Plan expressly acknowledges
that "[t]he Project Area is a rehabilitation area and
therefore . . . property acquisition by eminent domain is not
authorized."
Contrary to plaintiff's arguments, defendants are not
attempting to overturn the Court's decision in Gallenthin I. In
their oral and written arguments before the trial court, defendants
stated that they "do not now, nor have they ever, contended that
8 A-3295-16T3
Ordinance []11.16 designates [p]laintiff's [p]roperty as a
redevelopment area."
In reviewing the record, we find Ordinance 11.16 does not
undermine the Court's decision in Gallenthin I. The Borough is
not seeking redevelopment of plaintiff's property. Rather, the
entire Borough has been designated an area in need of
rehabilitation. Thus, the Court's decision in Gallenthin I remains
in effect, and Ordinance 11.16 does not contravene the holding in
that case.
Affirmed.
9 A-3295-16T3