UPDATED - 01.29.2009

In re 318-322 Glenwood Avenue, Bloomfield, New Jersey (Jeanny Sung Koo), OAL Docket No. CAF 05832-08, the firm defended the Township of Bloomfield against a commercial property owner’s claim for relocation assistance. In this case, the commercial property was conveyed to a private entity rather than to the Township of Bloomfield or its designated redeveloper. On January 16, 2009 Commissioner Doria adopted the Initial Decision that was rendered by the Honorable Barry Moscowitz, A.L.J. on December 11, 2008, as the Commissioner’s Final Decision, thereby granting the Township of Bloomfield’s motion for summary decision and concluding that the commercial property owner was ineligible for relocation assistance.

05.02.2008

In an Appellate Division decision that was published on May 2, 2008, Milford Mill 128, L.L.C. v. Borough of Milford, 400 N.J. Super. 96 (App. Div. 2008), the lawfirm of Maraziti, Falcon & Healey successfully defended an equal protection and substantive due process challenge to a Redevelopment Plan that prohibited land use variances and required a consistency determination by the governing body prior to a redeveloper being permitted to submit an application to the Planning Board. This decision is significant because the Appellate Division recognized for the first time that a redeveloper proposing a “de facto wholesale revision of the entire Redevelopment Plan” is not entitled to a use variance from the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan and the Appellate Division further distinguished its prior holding in Weeden v. City Council of Trenton, 391 N.J. Super 214 (App. Div. 2007) in which the Court upheld a minor use variance.

05.17.2007

Maraziti, Falcon & Healey, L.L.P. succeeds in obtaining the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a contract purchaser that challenged the Borough of Milford’s Redevelopment Plan and in which Plaintiff sought to proceed directly to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a use variance from the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan. In addition to equal protection and substantive due process arguments, Plaintiff argued that it was entitled to proceed directly to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a use variance based on the recent holding in Weeden v. City of Trenton, 391 N.J. Super 214 (App. Div. 2007) in which a developer was permitted to proceed with a use variance in a redevelopment area situated within the City of Trenton, and whereby the City of Trenton’s Redevelopment Plan provided overlay zoning. Unlike the City of Trenton’s Redevelopment Plan at issue in Weeden, however, the Borough of Milford’s Redevelopment Plan required approval by the Governing Body and, if necessary, the Technical Review Committee to ensure compliance with the overlay zoning of the Redevelopment Plan prior to being permitted to proceed to the Planning Board. Maraziti, Falcon & Healey, L.L.P. successfully argued that the Appellate Division was careful to distinguish Weeden from its prior holding in Jersey Urban Renewal, LLC v. City of Asbury Park, 377 N.J. Super. 232 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 392 (2005) involving a Redevelopment Plan substantially similar to the procedural prerequisites contained in the Borough of Milford’s Redevelopment Plan. Milford Mill 128, LLC v. Borough of Milford, HNT-L-99-07 (May 17, 2007).

02.26.2007

Joseph J. Maraziti, Jr. testified before the Senate Committee on Community and Urban Affairs, Bill No. S1975, entitled "Revises law concerning eminent domain and municipal redevelopment," sponsored by Senator Ronald R. Rice.