NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4356-15T3
CIVIC JC, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY;
THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF JERSEY CITY; and THE
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF
JERSEY CITY,
Defendants-Respondents.
___________________________
Argued October 4, 2017 – Decided November 1, 2017
Before Judges Koblitz and Suter.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket
No. L-3633-15.
Cynthia A. Hadjiyannis argued the cause for
appellant.
Christopher K. Harriott argued the cause for
respondent Planning Board of the City of
Jersey City (Florio Kenny Raval, LLP,
attorneys; Dennis P. Liloia, on the brief).
Chaunelle Robinson, Assistant Corporation
Counsel, argued the cause for respondents City
of Jersey City and Municipal Council of the
City of Jersey City (Jeremy Farrell,
Corporation Counsel, attorney; Ms. Robinson,
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Civic JC, Inc. appeals from the April 28, 2016 order
dismissing its complaint in lieu of prerogative writs seeking the
invalidation of the designation of the City Hall Study Area as a
"non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment," by Jersey City,
its Council and Planning Board under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5 of the
Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL), N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to
-73. We affirm.
Mary Ann Bucci-Carter, the Senior Planner of the Jersey City
Planning Division, conducted an investigation and presented a
report of her findings supporting the designation during a public
hearing held by the Planning Board. Civic JC did not attend the
hearing. The Planning Board unanimously recommended that the
Municipal Council designate the City Hall Study Area as a non-
condemnation area in need of redevelopment. The trial court,
under its deferential standard of review, held that the City
defendants' designation was not arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable because the Municipal Council had sufficient evidence
based on Bucci-Carter's report and testimony to find that the City
Hall Study Area met the statutory criteria.
The City Hall Study Area consists of 2.2 acres in downtown
Jersey City's Van Vorst Historic District. It includes City Hall,
2 A-4356-15T3
its adjacent parking lot, a parking lot across Montgomery Street
from City Hall and a privately-owned three-story multifamily
residential unit that fronts on York Street. The back of the York
Street building is contiguous to the Montgomery Street parking
lot.
A municipal governing body may conclude by resolution that a
delineated area is in need of redevelopment if any of the following
conditions is found:
(a) The generality of buildings are
substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated,
or obsolescent, or possess any of such
characteristics, or are so lacking in light,
air, or space, as to be conducive to
unwholesome living or working conditions;
. . . .
(d) Areas with buildings or improvements
which, by reason of dilapidation,
obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty
arrangement or design, lack of ventilation,
light and sanitary facilities, excessive land
coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete
layout, or any combination of these or other
factors, are detrimental to the safety,
health, morals, or welfare of the community;
. . . .
(h) The designation of the delineated area is
consistent with smart growth planning
principles adopted pursuant to law or
regulation.
[N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5.]
3 A-4356-15T3
Bucci-Carter conducted an investigation of each of the
parcels in the City Hall Study Area and produced the "Report
Concerning the Determination of the City Hall Study Area as a Non-
Condemnation Area in Need of Redevelopment" (Report). She
conducted a physical survey of the property "to determine the
general physical condition for the parcel within the Study Area."
The Report described the standards for evaluating the physical
conditions of each building as good, fair, poor, or dilapidated.
The Report defined "poor" physical condition as having
several major maintenance problems or code violations, including
those affecting electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating or air
conditioning systems. Significant conditions were those deemed
to be unsafe, unsanitary, obsolete or to be so lacking in light,
air or space as to be conducive to unwholesome human occupation.
The Report defined "dilapidated" physical condition as "in
advanced stages of deterioration." The Report found that all
parcels and structures were in "poor" condition.
The Report described the 1896 City Hall structure as "in need
of major system replacements and upgrades," a condition that "has
been exacerbated due to several natural disasters," including a
1979 fire and a flood caused by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The
Report states that the building "has begun to show signs of visible
deterioration," with "damaged or missing roof-top and fascia
4 A-4356-15T3
elements." It "sustained hundreds of thousands of dollars of
flood damage to the basement, elevator mechanism and utilities,"
such that "portions of the basement [are] no longer fit for active
use." Additionally, "[l]ower level windows remain boarded," and
"[a] portion of the Montgomery Street foundation near the entry
stair has begun to buckle causing significant cracks in the façade
above." The Report also found cracks were "readily apparent in
the bluestone stairs at the front entrance" and the "blue stone
has begun to spall[1] and crumble with mortar cracking and flaking
away requiring reconstruction and not mere re-pointing." The
Report describes the interior of the building as "lack[ing] a
sprinkler system, a modern handicapped accessible entrance
(although a compliant access was recently reconstructed on
Montgomery Street), up-dated electrical and lighting services, in
addition to [having] general cosmetic damage, examples of which
include peeling paint and broken floor tiles."
The Report concludes its analysis of the City Hall building
by stating that the building needs "extreme renovations" and is:
representative of substandard conditions and
clearly possesses obsolete features and design
that have not been upgraded over the years to
eliminate functional obsolescence. Some areas
of the building are lacking in light, air and
1
Spall is generally defined in the dictionary as to break (ore,
rock, or stone) into fragments. Spall, OxfordDictionaries.com,
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spall (last visited
Oct. 16, 2017).
5 A-4356-15T3
efficient space qualifying as unwholesome. The
building can be classified as meeting criteria
"a" and "d" as an area in need of
redevelopment.
City Hall's adjacent parking lot "contains multiple layers
of uneven and uncurbed asphalt." It has a "substandard, dangerous,
and obsolete parking design . . . with two parallel dead-end aisles
entering Marin Boulevard only 20' from the intersection and 40'
apart creat[ing] a hazardous traffic pattern within the ROW.[2]"
The lot "lacks proper drainage, grading, curbing, landscaping, and
other elements common and necessary for the proper and safe
function of a parking area." The Report classified the adjacent
City Hall parking lot as meeting criterion (d) as an area in need
of redevelopment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5.
The Montgomery Street parking lot has faded striping, and
lacks adequate "[c]urbing, curb stops, adequate lighting and
buffering landscaping." The lot contains damaged fencing and "in
some areas, only the frame of the fence remains, yielding a rundown
and poorly maintained look." The lot "lacks proper drainage,
grading, and other typical modern improvements intrinsic to a well
developed and well designed parking facility." The Report
concludes that the lot "constitutes a deleterious land use
detrimental to the safety and welfare of the community" and meets
2
Based on the context, we assume ROW refers to "right of way."
6 A-4356-15T3
criteria (d) and (h) as an area in need of redevelopment under
N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5.
The last parcel surveyed by the Report is the three-story,
five-unit multifamily residential building located on York Street.
The building "has a rear yard, strewn with trash and surrounded
by a chain-link fence that is falling down." It is "of substandard
design with small inefficient units." The building contains
"[l]oose and hanging wires, and wired [sic] entering and exiting
the center, side and front walls." The rear of the building
"requires some repairs to insure [the metal fire escape] is closed
and secure." Both the front and back of the building "contain an
undersized person door non-compliant to current building code or
safety design standards."
The Report concludes that the York Street building "possesses
characteristics of lacking light, air, and space, in a manner
conducive to unwholesome living conditions." The Report
determines that the parcel meets criterion (a) as an area in need
of redevelopment under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5.
The last section of the Report entitled "Conclusion and
Recommendation" summarizes the findings and classifies the City
Hall Study Area as a non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment
under criteria (a), (d), and (h) of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5. The Report
characterizes the buildings as having "conditions of obsolescence
7 A-4356-15T3
and unsafe conditions" and the parking lots as posing "a
dramatically unsafe condition to the welfare and safety of hundreds
of pedestrians that utilize these sidewalks each day" and a danger
to "the public heath [sic] and safety of parking lot users and
others who commute to or visit the City Hall building or
neighborhood." The Report notes that the City Hall Study Area is
also within the "Smart Growth Areas" map, and therefore qualifies
under criterion (h) of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5.
Civic JC argues that the Planning Board and Council improperly
designated the property as obsolete under criterion (a) because
to be "obsolete" means to be "no longer in use" and the City Hall
building, the two parking lots and the residential building are
still in use. Civic JC also argues that the Report did not address
the second part of criterion (a) regarding "characteristics
conducive to unwholesome working conditions," and, under criterion
(d), the Report fails to provide enough evidence that the City
Hall building is "detrimental to the safety, health, welfare or
morals of the community."
Civic JC does not deny that Bucci-Carter is an experienced
city planner and that the conditions in the Report do in fact
exist. No expert witness or other opposition to the non-
condemnation in need of redevelopment, or blighted, designation
was presented during the Planning Board hearing.
8 A-4356-15T3
The trial court reviewed the Report and the statute and
concluded that the evidence was not "so light or lacking in detail
that the action of the board was arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable." We review a trial court's decision using the same
standards as the trial court: giving deference to the actions and
factual findings of local boards, not disturbing such findings
unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Jacoby
v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Borough of Englewood Cliffs, 442
N.J. Super. 450, 462 (App. Div. 2015).
"The New Jersey Constitution grants municipalities the
authority to revitalize decaying and disintegrating residential,
commercial, and industrial areas." 62-64 Main Street, LLC v.
Mayor and Council of City of Hackensack, 221 N.J. 129, 134 (2015).
The goal of Article VIII, Section 3, Paragraph 1, the Blighted
Areas Clause, is "to give municipalities the means to improve the
quality of life of their residents and to spur business opportunity
and job growth." Ibid. The Local Redevelopment and Housing Law
(LRHL), N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -73, defines when an area is blighted
and therefore "in need of redevelopment." N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5.
A municipal governing body has the authority to determine by
resolution whether areas that are within its jurisdiction are
areas in need of redevelopment, but must first, by resolution,
"authorize the planning board to undertake a preliminary
9 A-4356-15T3
investigation to determine whether the proposed area is a
redevelopment area." N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6(a). The planning board
will make the determination after public notice and a public
hearing, and then recommend to the municipal governing body whether
it should designate the area in need of redevelopment. N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-6(b). After receiving the recommendation, the municipal
governing body may adopt a resolution determining that the area
is in need of redevelopment. N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6(b)(5)(b).
Planning boards and governing bodies "have an obligation to
rigorously comply with the statutory criteria for determining
whether an area is in need of redevelopment." 62-64 Main Street,
supra, 221 N.J. at 156. In an action in lieu of prerogative writs
challenging a blight determination, the trial court must decide
whether the determination is "supported by substantial evidence."
N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6(b)(5)(c).
"[A]fter the municipal authorities have rendered a decision
that an area is in need of redevelopment, that decision is
'invested with a presumption of validity.'" 62-64 Main Street,
supra, 221 N.J. at 157 (quoting Levin v. Twp. Comm. of Bridgewater,
57 N.J. 506, 537 (1971)). The LRHL provides that an "'area in
need of redevelopment' designation 'if supported by substantial
evidence . . . shall be binding and conclusive upon all persons
affected by the determination.'" Concerned Citizens of Princeton,
10 A-4356-15T3
Inc. v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Princeton, 370 N.J. Super.
429, 452-53 (App. Div. 2004) (quoting N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6(b)(5)).
Criteria (a) and (d) list both "obsolescence" and
"dilapidation" as conditions that may individually lead to a
finding that an area is in need of redevelopment, as long as the
condition is either "conducive to unwholesome living or working
conditions," N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(a)3, or "detrimental to the
safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community." N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-5(d). Obsolescence is defined in the dictionary as "the
process of becoming obsolete or the condition of being nearly
obsolete." Obsolescence, Merriam-Webster.com,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolescence (last
visited Oct. 16, 2017). Obsolete is defined as "no longer in use
or no longer useful." Obsolete, Merriam-Webster.com,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolete (last visited
Oct. 16, 2017). Obsolescence does not require that the building
be no longer in use. Therefore, Civic JC's argument that no
building currently in use can logically be obsolescent is
inaccurate. The Report describes numerous specific conditions of
the City Hall building and states that it "clearly possesses
3
A fair reading of this subsection also supports the conclusion
that a finding of "obsolescence" or "dilapidation" alone is
sufficient, even if not "conducive to unwholesome living or working
conditions." We need not resolve this ambiguity in this opinion.
11 A-4356-15T3
obsolete features and design," and that areas of the building lack
"light, air, and efficient space qualifying as unwholesome." The
Report concludes that the City Hall building meets both criteria
(a) and (d).
When reviewing whether a municipality properly exercised its
authority in designating an area in need of redevelopment, courts
should not parse structures within a property. See 62-64 Main
Street, supra, 221 N.J. at 160 (determining that the Court could
not look separately at the subject property's parking lot, as the
lot was an integral part of the property). The Report found that
the two parking lots included in the City Hall Study Area have
features that are unsafe, substandard, and obsolete, and have
potentially harmful conditions "conducive to unwholesome
conditions for users" of the parking lot. The Report determined
that the parking lots qualify under statutory criterion (d).
Bucci-Carter relied on information provided by the building's
owner, after determining that an interior survey was not mandated,
when evaluating the York Street building. After detailing the
building's observed exterior conditions, the Report concluded that
the site met the statutory criteria under (a) as an area in need
of redevelopment. The Planning Board made its recommendation to
the Municipal Council based on findings of both obsolescence and
dilapidation for the City Hall Study Area as a whole.
12 A-4356-15T3
The Report coupled with Bucci-Carter's unrebutted testimony
provided substantial evidence of the City Hall Study Area's
classification as a non-condemnation area in need of
redevelopment.
Affirmed.
13 A-4356-15T3