Bulletin Board Magazine [Volume 2 - 2025]

This published decision highlights key considerations for property developers involved in municipal redevelopment projects. It underscores the importance of understanding the legal framework governing redevelopment agreements, particularly the flexibility allowed under the LRHL for negotiating payments. Developers should also be aware of the implications of their designated developer status and the potential for plan amendments that may affect their projects. 290 Ocean is represented by Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla. Blackridge filed a petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court challenging this decision. At the time of this writing, the petition remains pending. Matter of Blackridge Realty, Inc., A 0246-23 (April 3, 2025), is another case involving a separate challenge by Blackridge to 290 Ocean’s proposed project in Long Branch. Here, the Appellate Division affirmed the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (“NJDEP”) decision to issue a permit under the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (“CAFRA”) to 290 Ocean for the construction of an apartment building in Long Branch. Blackridge challenged the permit, arguing that the project violated the Scenic Resources and Design (“SRD”) Rule under the Coastal Zone Management Rules. LONG BRANCH -CAFRA Matter of Blackridge Realty, Inc.

redevelopment agreement, 290 Ocean agreed to pay the City $2 million, which was intended to defray costs associated with the redevelopment and benefit the community, specifically through the renovation of a senior center. Blackridge commenced an action against the City and 290 Ocean challenging the payment and the plan amendment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City and 290 Ocean. On appeal, Blackridge argued that: the payment was improper because it lacked a direct connection to the redevelopment project and was essentially a “pay for approval” scheme; its consent was required for any amendments to the redevelopment plan because it is a “designated developer”; and the amendment constituted impermissible spot zoning. The Appellate Division affirmed. The court held that the payment was lawful under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (“LRHL”) and recognized that the LRHL allows municipalities to negotiate payments with redevelopers to defray general redevelopment costs, without requiring a direct nexus to the specific project. As to the plan amendment, the court found that Blackridge was no longer a designated developer by the time the amendment was enacted, as its agreement with the City had terminated upon completion of its project. Therefore, the City was not obligated to obtain Blackridge’s consent. The court also concluded that the amendment did not constitute spot zoning, as it was consistent with the City’s master plan and aimed at promoting the general welfare.

Bulletin Board | 35 | www.shorebuilders.org