In a recent decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification in a long-running case between Blackridge Realty and the City of Long Branch. The Court’s denial significantly clarifies a major issue within the redevelopment law community-the scope and lawfulness of redevelopment fee payments under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL). The Court’s denial of certification confirms the Appellate Court ruling that such payments may be lawful, provided they are reasonably related to and supportive of the broader purposes of the municipality’s redevelopment program.
The Blackridge Realty v. City of Long Branch case arose from a redevelopment agreement between the City and a private redeveloper involving property within the City’s Oceanfront-Broadway Redevelopment Area. Under the agreement, the redeveloper agreed to pay the city a $2 million “redevelopment fee” provided that the fee would benefit the City’s redevelopment areas and serve as an additional community benefit to address redevelopment activity impacts within the City. The City used the redevelopment fee to renovate a neighboring senior center for local residents. Although the senior center was near but outside of the official redevelopment area, both the City and the courts determined that the use of funds was consistent with the purposes of the LRHL. Blackridge Realty, a property owner within the same designated redevelopment area subsequently challenged both the payment and the plan amendment and appealed the planning board’s approval of the site plan as well as the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s issuance of a Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) permit for the project.
The Appellate Court rejected Blackridge Realty’s claims, highlighting the distinction between the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) and the LRHL. The Appellate Court found that the latter does not impose a direct nexus or statutory-use limitation but grants municipalities broad flexibility in authorization of negotiations and collection of payments from redevelopers. The court concluded that so long as payment is reasonably related to the municipality’s broader redevelopment purposes, it is lawful under the LRHL.
The Blackridge Realty decision gives municipalities flexibility under the LRHL to apply redevelopment-related funds to projects that serve the public interest and advance broader revitalization goals, even when those projects are not actually located within the redevelopment zone.
Contact: Sadayah Q. DuRant-Brown, Legislative Counsel, sdurantbrown@njlm.org, 609-695-3481, x137.