New Jersey Appellate Division Clarifies Scope of Blight Finding Under Local Housing and Redevelopment Law

A recent decision by the Appellate Division makes clear the requirement that a finding of blight is a necessary prerequisite to the exercise of the area in need of redevelopment finding under the Local Housing and Redevelopment Law (LHRL).

In 62-64 Main Street LLC, et al. the Mayor and Council of the City of Hackensack, et al, A3257-11T4, the Appellate Division amplified the prior Supreme Court ruling of Gallenthin Realty v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007) as applied by the Appellate Division in Hoagland v. City of Long Branch, 428 N.J. Super. 321 (App. Div. 2012). These cases collectively mandate that in order to designate an area in need of redevelopment, a planning board and governing body must not only make a determination that the affected area satisfies the findings established under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, but also make a finding of blight applicable to the proposed redevelopment area. These cases reflect the constitutional requirement of a blight finding as a necessary prerequisite to the use of eminent domain under the LHRL.

There has been some dispute as to whether the scope of the Gallenthin holding requiring the finding of blight in instances involving findings related to other purposes of the LHRL, other than just purpose (e). See Gallenthin Realty v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007), N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(e). In 62-64 Main Street, the Appellate Division makes clear that under the LHRL, in order to designate an area in need of redevelopment, a municipality must make "a finding of actual blight before private property may be taken for purposes of redevelopment." 62-64 Main StreetSlip Opinion at 9. The 62-64 Main Street holding amplifies the Appellate Division's prior decision in Hoagland, where the Appellate Division held that "the Constitution requires a finding of actual blight before private property may be taken for purposes of redevelopment." Hoagland v. City of Long Branch, 428 N.J. Super. at 324.

The facts of 62-64 Main Street are all too familiar for those active in redevelopment projects. The plaintiffs own property that was found by the Planning Board to be in need of redevelopment and confirmed by the Mayor and Council as blighted, based on perfunctory findings associated with dilapidation and "faulty layout". Slip Opinion at 5,6. In the Planning Board's resolution, the Board found that plaintiff's property contained buildings that showed signs of structural deterioration, were boarded up and had been...