This week began with two published opinions by the Appellate Division in different areas of municipal land use. Here are summaries:
Route 440 Developers, LLC v. Planning Board of the City of Jersey City, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This was an appeal of the defendant Board’s denial of development approvals for Phase I of a multi-phase, mixed-use development application for property located in a redevelopment area. In an opinion by Judge Bergman, the Appellate Division applied the arbitrary and capricious standard of review and affirmed the Board. Though the developer contended that its applications should have been granted “as of right” because they conformed with the applicable zoning ordinance provisions. But the panel concluded that plaintiff's failure to satisfy a major purpose and goal of the Redevelopment Plan by providing a lot designation for a critical rail line right of way independently in Phase I, rather than reserving the lot designation for later phases of the development, defeated plaintiff’s position.
Higher Breed NJ LLC v. The City of Burlington Common Council, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This case arose out of plaintiff’s application for a resolution of support (“ROS”) from defendant for plaintiff’s pursuit of a Cannabis Retailer License from the State’s Cannabis Regulatory Commission under the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 to -56 (“CREAMMA”). The Council declined to provide the ROS but gave no reasons for doing so. The Law Division reversed and ordered the Board to provide the ROS. On defendant’s appeal, the Appellate Division, speaking through Judge Perez Friscia, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The panel agreed that the Council had a duty to “provide a discernible basis for denying Higher Breed's ROS application, thereby informing the applicant and the public of its reasons, as well as affording meaningful appellate review.” But the court parted company from the Law Division’s mandate that the Council issue the ROS, instead remanding for the Council for further proceedings, including the development of a record and issuance of a statement of reasons.
