NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4570-08T34570-08T3
POWERHOUSE ARTS DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
MARC N. SIMON, JILL EDELMAN, EVAN GOURVITZ, BRIAN GUSTAFSON, CHARLES KESSLER, THOMAS GRILL, RICHARD JAMES, HARSIMUS COVE ASSOCIATION, RICHARD TOMKO, KATHRYN LEONARD, JOHN GOMEZ, and JOSHUA PARKHURST,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, 134 BAY STREET, L.L.C., and 126-142 MORGAN STREET URBAN RENEWAL,
Defendants-Respondents.
Argued April 13, 2010 - Decided
Before Judges Parrillo, Lihotz and Ashrafi.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-2756-08.
Michael B. Kates argued the cause for appellant (Kates Nussman Rapone Ellis & Farhi, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Kates, of counsel and on the brief).
William C. Matsikoudis, Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for respondent City Council of the City of Jersey City (Mr. Matsikoudis, attorney; Judith D. O'Donnell, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the brief).
Carl S. Bisgaier argued the cause for respondents 134 Bay Street, L.L.C., and 126-142 Morgan Street Urban Renewal (Bisgaier Hoff, L.L.C., and Connell, Foley, L.L.P., attorneys; Richard J. Hoff, Jr., and Mr. Bisgaier, on the briefs).
Respondents Marc N. Simon, Jill Edelman, Evan Gourvitz, Brian Gustafson, Charles Kessler, Thomas Grill, Richard James, Harsimus Cove Association, Richard Tomko, Kathryn Leonard, John Gomez, and Joshua Parkhurst have not filed a brief.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARRILLO, J.A.D.
In an action in lieu of prerogative writs, plaintiff Powerhouse Arts District Neighborhood Association (PADNA or plaintiff) and others challenged a redevelopment plan amendment proposed by defendants 134 Bay Street, L.L.C. and 126-142 Morgan Street Urban Renewal (developers), and adopted by defendant City Council of the City of Jersey City (Council). Following a hearing on the record developed before the Council and Planning Board (Board), the Law Division upheld the amendment's adoption. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the court applied the incorrect standard of review, that the amendment was so fundamentally contradictory to the original plan adopted only four years earlier that it should fail under any standard of review, and that lots blighted years earlier were improperly included under the plan without any evaluation of whether they remained in need of redevelopment. We reject these arguments and affirm.
By way of background, in 2004, Council designated a sizeable area in downtown Jersey City, populated largely with vacant, though historically significant, industrial buildings, as in need of redevelopment pursuant to the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL), N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -73. That area constitutes the bulk of what is now the Powerhouse Arts District (PAD), envisioned as a district preserving the historical character of the area and providing ample and affordable living and working space for artists. Council had already begun zoning the area and encouraging its development to that effect pursuant to the Work and Live District Overlay Zone (WALDO) ordinance adopted in 1996 and its successor, WALDO II, in 2001.
After the redevelopment designation, Council promptly adopted a redevelopment plan covering not only the PAD study area that had recently become blighted, but also several adjacent lots that were included in the Bay Street Area Redevelopment Plan adopted twenty-nine years earlier. The properties that were shifted to the PAD redevelopment plan -- Block 172, Lots A through D and Block 171 (the Manischewitz lots) -- were properly blighted pursuant to the LRHL's predecessor statute. These industrial lots were purposely excluded from WALDO and WALDO II to encourage Manischewitz to continue its operations there, though the lots now lie vacant and unused.
The PAD redevelopment plan largely followed the recommendations of an Urban Land Institute (ULI) report commissioned by the city and emphasized the development of "a vibrant neighborhood with primary emphases on the arts, entertainment and culture," as well as preservation of existing industrial structures. Although the district included a high-rise zone, it was otherwise divided between a rehabilitation zone "designed to accommodate the adaptive re-use of the existing historic resources in the district[,]" and a transition zone designed as a buffer. The plan was amended three times in as many years, most notably when the Powerhouse Arts Residence Zone was introduced within the PAD to accommodate high-rise structures as part of a settlement of federal court litigation.
In the fall of 2007, developers 134 Bay Street and 126-142 Morgan Street Urban Renewal, who owned, within the PAD, the Manischewitz lots and Block 140, respectively, proposed a plan amendment creating an Arts Theater Residence Overlay Zone (ATROZ) covering those lots and the cobblestone public right of way sandwiched between Blocks 140 and 171. The amendment primarily relaxed existing height and density requirements to accommodate the developers' planned high-rise structures, but was conditioned on the construction of a 550-seat non-profit performing arts theater with exhibition space, an artist-in-residence unit, a parking lot for the theater and surrounding neighborhood, an art-themed public plaza reusing cobblestones from the existing public right of way and workforce housing or a per-unit financial contribution. Furthermore, the developers would be responsible for an "arts contribution" of up to $1.1 million dedicated to funding operation of the theater and other "arts-related uses" within the ATROZ. Pursuant to the proposal, existing structures would be demolished, except only the fa