LARRY PRICE VS. LIBERTY PARK AT UNION CITY, LLC (L-1054-17, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0032-17T1
LARRY PRICE,
Plaintiff-Appellant/
Cross-Respondent,
v.
LIBERTY PARK AT UNION
CITY, LLC,
Defendant-Respondent/
Cross-Appellant,
and
UNION CITY PLANNING BOARD,
Defendant-Respondent.
______________________________
Argued July 10, 2018 – Decided February 20, 2019
Before Judges O'Connor and Moynihan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-1054-17.
Larry Price, appellant/cross-respondent, argued the
cause pro se.
Michael R. Fink argued the cause for
respondent/cross-appellant.
Gregory F. Kotchick argued the cause for respondent
(Durkin & Durkin, LLC, attorneys; Gregory F.
Kotchick, of counsel and on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
O'CONNOR, J.A.D.
Plaintiff Larry Price appeals from a July 21, 2017 order dismissing his
complaint in lieu of prerogative writs against defendants Liberty Park at Union
City, LLC (Liberty Park) and Union City Planning Board (board). Defendant
Liberty Park cross-appeals from the same order. We affirm the July 21, 2017
order, rendering the cross-appeal moot.
Liberty Park seeks to construct a forty-eight-unit residential building on a
vacant lot in Union City. It submitted an application to the board for site plan
approval and, in particular, a conditional use variance pursuant to N.J.S.A.
40:55D-70(d). As part of this application, Liberty Park also sought variances
for the parking lot, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2), as well as certain
waivers. The site is located in the R District of Union City, which permits only
one, two, or three family dwellings, but conditionally permits a "Greyfield
Development," defined by ordinance as "a vacant building and/or property
A-0032-17T1
2
formerly used for industrial purposes or commercial purposes." UNION CITY,
NEW JERSEY REV. GEN. ORDINANCES § 223-5(C) (2013).
The board conducted two hearings on Liberty Park's application; one was
held on April 26, 2016 (April meeting) and the other on May 24, 2016 (May
meeting). The board consisted of nine members and two alternates. Six
members, including two alternates, attended the April meeting; eight members,
also including two alternates, attended the May meeting. At the conclusion of
the May meeting the eight members voted unanimously to grant Liberty Park 's
application. A resolution and amended resolution were subsequently issued
memorializing the vote and the Board's findings.
As a nine-member board, five members – whether or not an alternate –
had to be present at a meeting to constitute a quorum. See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-6
(providing "'[q]uorum' means the majority of the full authorized membership of
a municipal agency."). Significantly, four of those who attended the May
meeting had not attended the April meeting, and they did not listen to the tape
or read the transcript of the April meeting before the May one. See N.J.S.A.
40:55D-10.2 (providing that if a member of a municipal agency is absent from
a meeting at which a hearing was held, such member shall be eligible to vote on
the matter upon which the hearing was conducted if the member certifies in
A-0032-17T1
3
writing that he or she read the transcript or listened to the recording of such
hearing).
N.J.S.A. 40:55D-9 provides that no action shall be taken at any meeting
unless there is a quorum. Further, if a member misses a hearing during an
application process and has not reviewed the transcript or heard a recording of
that hearing pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10.2, that member cannot be counted
as part of a quorum when the Board convenes to continue the hearing at a later
date. Garner v. Mountainside Bd. of Adjustment, 212 N.J. Super. 417, 426 (Law
Div. 1986).
As stated, five members of Union City Planning Board constituted a
quorum, but four of the eight members who attended the May meeting had not
listened to the tape or read a transcript of the April meeting. Therefore, the May
meeting was conducted without a quorum of the board. Notwithstanding, at the
conclusion of such meeting the eight members present voted unanimously to
grant Liberty Park's application.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the
resolution and amended resolution, arguing both were null and void because of
the absence of a quorum at the May meeting. Plaintiff also argued that what
A-0032-17T1
4
Liberty Park sought to construct was not a Greyfield Development and, thus,
was not a permitted conditional use.
The trial court agreed with plaintiff that the failure to have a quorum at
the May meeting invalidated the vote on Liberty Park's application at the May
meeting, making the amended resolution null and void. In accordance with the
remedy utilized under analogous circumstances in Schmidhausler v. Planning
Bd., 408 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2009), the trial court remanded the matter
back to the board so that the four members who had not attended the April
meeting could read the transcript or listen to the tape of such meeting. The court
directed that if such members certified to doing either the former or the latter,
all of the eight members could then vote on Liberty Park's application. The
court declined to decide the issue of whether Liberty Park's project was a
permitted conditional use.
The record on remand indicates that those members present at the remand
hearing had either been present at or signed a certification stating he or she read
the transcript of the April meeting. The nine board members present at the
remand hearing voted unanimously in favor of Liberty Park's application; a
resolution memorializing that action was issued thereafter.
A-0032-17T1
5
Plaintiff filed a second complaint in lieu of prerogative writs challenging
the latest resolution. Among other things, in his complaint plaintiff contended
the May meeting was "a nullity" because of the absence of a quorum and,
therefore, those who voted on the application at the subsequent remand hearing
had "rel[ied] on a nullity to determine their vote."
This argument, which plaintiff subsequently clarified, was the board
should not have conducted any business during the May meeting because there
was no quorum, making what occurred during the hearing a nullity. We note
plaintiff actively participated in the hearing without raising any objection to the
fact there was no quorum of the board present. In his second complaint, plaintiff
also asserted Liberty Park's proposed use was not a permitted conditional use.
The trial court ultimately rejected both arguments, determining both N.J.S.A.
40:55D-10.2 and the holding in Schmidhausler permitted the remedy the trial
court initially ordered. The court also found Liberty Park's proposed use was a
permitted conditional use. On July 21, 2017, the court entered an order
dismissing plaintiff's complaint, and this appeal ensued.
On appeal, plaintiff reprises the arguments he asserted before the trial
court. After reviewing the record and applicable legal principles, we have
determined they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
A-0032-17T1
6
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). However, we make the following comments. In
Schmidhausler, a board member had failed to read the transcript or listen to the
tapes of one hearing. In that matter, we found the appropriate remedy to be as
follows.
[T]he legislative intent is clear. It is to make sure that
those who vote on Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL),
N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1-129, applications are fully informed
of what transpired during all the hearings on that
application. Rather than denying the application
outright or putting all of the parties to the cost and
expense of an entire new hearing, a simple logical
remedy is to remand the matter to the Board and have
all current members deliberate and revote, with those
who had not attended one or all of the hearings in this
matter review the transcript of any meeting or meetings
that they may have missed, certify they have done so,
and then have them deliberate and vote as well.
[Schmidhausler, 408 N.J. Super. at 13.]
Pertaining to the contention the proposed use is not permitted as a
conditional use under the Greyfield Development ordinance, we note there was
ample evidence the subject property was formerly used for commercial
purposes, making the proposed use permitted under the subject ordinance.
In its cross appeal, defendant Liberty Park asserts the following point for
our consideration:
POINT I: PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT THE [VOTE
AT THE REMAND HEARING] WAS TAINTED BY
A-0032-17T1
7
THE BOARD'S EARLIER VOTE PRIOR TO
REMAND AND IS, THEREFORE, A "NULLITY" IS
BARRED BY THE DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA
OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND REGARDLESS
IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS OF
APPLICABLE LAW.
In light of our disposition of plaintiff's contentions, the cross-appeal is moot.
Affirmed.
A-0032-17T1
8