Preview:

a3349-06.opn.html
The status of this decision is unpublished
Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3349-06T13349-06T1
JOEL D. ROSEN and
JANET A. FILIOS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
PLAINSBORO TOWNSHIP,
Defendant-Respondent.
Submitted April 7, 2008 — Decided
Before Judges Stern, Collester and C.L. Miniman.
On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey,
Mercer County, Docket No. 8183-2006.
Rosen Pagan, attorneys for appellants (Joel
D. Rosen, of counsel and on the brief).
Harry Haushalter, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs Joel Rosen and Janet Filios appeal from the final judgment of the Tax Court denying their appeal of
the 1996 assessment of condominium apartments in the Township of Plainsboro (the Township). We affirm.
Plaintiffs are the owners of six condominium units in The Commons at Princeton Landing, a 120-unit
condominium development. As the result of significant water damage to the exterior walls of the units, major
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3349-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:56:29 PM]




a3349-06.opn.html
remediation work began in July 2003. The project involved removing the exterior walls, sanitizing and resealing the
interior walls, constructing new exterior walls complete with new insulation and vapor and moisture barriers, and
installing new stucco on the exterior. Residents were required to vacate the premises during the remediation until
its completion in April 2005. The total project cost was $4,126,450.
On October 1, 2004, when the Township conducted a municipal-wide property revaluation for the upcoming tax
year, the repairs were still ongoing. Plaintiff's units were assessed in their state of partial repair at $130,000 each,
with a land value of $65,000 and an improvement value of $65,000. The Township tax rolls and the tax bills for the
units indicated that the units were partially exempt to reflect that their assessed value was lower due to the
ongoing construction. After the repairs were completed, the condominiums were reassessed in 2005 and the partial
exemption was removed. Plaintiff's units were revalued at $155,000 each, reflecting a $25,000 increase in the
improvement value of each unit. After they received a letter informing them of the 2006 assessment for their
properties, plaintiffs petitioned the Middlesex County Board of Taxation (the Board) to challenge the 2006
reassessment. They claimed the assessor was without authority to increase the assessment from the 2005 values
without seeking a "compliance plan" from the Director of Taxation and the Board pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-25. The
Board denied the petition and affirmed the validity of the 2006 reassessment. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Tax
Court, and at the hearing on January 9, 2007 before Judge Gail L. Menyuk, again argued the Township violated
statutes requiring a compliance plan prior to an increased assessment. Judge Menyuk decided that a compliance
plan was not required because the change of assessment was due to the remediation of the properties which was
excepted from the compliance plan requirement under N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(i)(3)(vii). This appeal followed.
Plaintiffs argue once again that the Township's 2006 reassessment of their condominium units should be nullified
because no compliance plan was submitted or approved, and they challenge the application of the remediation
exception under the applicable regulation. N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14 provides in pertinent part the following:
(i) Assessment maintenance: An assessor proposing to revise and update assessments
because he or she has reason to believe that property comprising a part of a taxing
district has been assessed at a value lower or higher than is consistent with the purpose
of securing uniform taxable valuation of property according to law for the purpose of
taxation, or is not in substantial compliance with the law, and that the interests of the
public will be promoted by reassessment of such property, shall make a reassessment
of the property in the taxing district not in substantial compliance. . .
3. The following are the criteria to be considered by the county board and Division of
Taxation in determining whether to approve a compliance plan.
(viii) Assessed value changes due to clerical, typographical, transpositional,
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3349-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:56:29 PM]




a3349-06.opn.html
physical descriptive or mathematical errors, added assessments, omitted
assessments, omitted added assessments, exemptions, demolitions,
governmentally imposed restrictions, planning board, and/or zoning board of
adjustment approvals, approved revaluations, site contamination, removal of
contaminated soil and property remediation; and storm, cyclone, tornado,
earthquake, fire, flood, hurricane, vandalism, or other casualty, qualified
farmland, subdivisions, mergers and changes resulting from appeals or
settlement agreements, do not require the filing of a compliance plan.
Plaintiffs argue that "property remediation" in section (i)(3)(viii) should be read in conjunction with the
preceding language "soil contamination" to except from the compliance plan requirement only property
remediation undertaken in connection with contaminated soil, and should not include remediation that they
contend amounts to "a concentrated catching-up on deferred maintenance."
Our scope of review requires that we defer to the expertise of the Tax Court and limit our review to a
determination of whether the Tax Court's decision was arbitrary and whether its findings of fact are supported by
substantial credible evidence. Little Egg Harbor Township v. Bonsangue, 316 N.J. Super. 271, 285 (App. Div. 1998);
Glenpointe Associates v. Township of Teaneck, 241 N.J. Super. 37, 46 (App. Div. 1990); Southbridge Park, Inc. v.
Borough of Fort Lee, 201 N.J. Super. 91, 94 (App. Div. 1985). In this instance, Judge Menyuk found that the remedial
work was not simply deferred maintenance but effected physical changes at the conclusion of the remedial work
that increased the value of the condominium units from the prior assessment, which reflected only partial
improvements to the properties while they were in a state of ongoing remediation. We also agree with the Tax
Court's interpretation of N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.14(i)(3)(viii), that the regulation does not require a compliance plan when
the increase in assessed value is due to physical changes resulting from remediation. We decline to adopt plaintiffs'
restrictive reading of the regulation to exempt only remediation of soil contamination as opposed to any other
remediating work. We hold in this case that the substantial remediation of the subject properties constituted an
exception to the requirement of a compliance plan stated in N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.
Plaintiffs' alternative argument is that if the regulation exempts the compliance plan requirement in the
instant case, it should be stricken as inconsistent with N.J.S.A. 54:4-23, the statute the regulation purports to
interpret. We will not address the issue since plaintiffs did not serve a copy of their notice of appeal on the Attorney
General as required by Rule 2:5-1(h) when the validity of a regulatory act is challenged.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
6
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3349-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:56:29 PM]




a3349-06.opn.html
A-3349-06T1
September 3, 2008
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a3349-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:56:29 PM]

Download a3349-06.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law