Category: Development/Redevelopment

NJDEP Posts List of Approvals Extended by Permit Extension Act of 2020

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), in its function as the repository for registering approval extensions under the Permit Extension Act of 2020 (“PEA2020”), codified at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-136.7, has posted the list of approvals which were registered by the October 8, 2020 deadline. There are actually two separate lists available from NJDEP, one consisting of permits issued by the NJDEP, and the other consisting of approvals issued by all other agencies. The second list encompasses a broad array of approvals including municipal and county planning board approvals, health department approvals, highway access permits, road opening permits, redevelopment agreements, soil conservation district certification, and a host of others. Both lists provide the name of the permittee, permitting agency, type of permit, and permit number. They are searchable by keyword. It appears that these lists are only inclusive of the approvals that have been granted extensions, and developers and permitted parties should review them carefully to confirm whether their approvals have been included. As reported previously, PEA2020 authorizes the extension of a wide variety of approvals, including, but not limited to, soil conservation district approvals, waterfront development permits, wetlands permits, CAFRA permits and center designations, septic approvals, municipal utility authority approvals, county and municipal planning board approvals, and a host of other municipal, county, regional,...

Permit Extensions: Looming Deadline and Best Practices

The period within which to register development approvals for tolling or extension under the Permit Extension Act of 2020 (“Act”) concludes on October 8, 2020. Permits and approvals which are not timely registered by that date may expire without receiving the benefit of tolling afforded by the Act. We have detailed both the Permit Extension Act of 2020 and the recently published notices from various state agencies on our website. While the language of the Act as adopted, and the accompanying notices from the various state agencies, are not fully consistent with respect to what approvals are required to be registered, we wanted to pass along two key suggestions regarding how to best take advantage of the Act: Register All Approvals. We suggest to err on the side of registering all approvals – this means not only State agency permits, but also municipal land use approvals, agreements for sewerage capacity, water permits, construction permits, plan endorsements under the State Planning Act, and any approval for permits related to any development application. While the statutory language seemed to suggest that it was only state level permitting that would be subject to registration, it appears that NJDEP will be serving as a database and repository for all approvals – not just those of state agencies – and...

Permits to Be Extended Under Permit Extension Act of 2020 Must Be Registered by October 8, 2020

We previously reported on the adoption of the Permit Extension Act of 2020, which provided a mechanism for tolling or extension of permits and approvals during the public health emergency associated with COVID-19, and extending those approvals for “at least six months beyond the conclusion” of the associated extension period. Under the Permit Extension Act of 2020, all approvals that are subject to tolling or extension were required to be registered “with the department” within 30 days of the publication of a notice in the New Jersey Register. That registration deadline has now been established as October 8, 2020. Regardless of whether your permit or approval expires in the next few months or late next year, it may be prudent to register now, particularly given the differences between the prior iterations of the Permit Extension Act and the present statutory language, and the lack of a clear end of the present public health emergency. The Department of Environmental Protection published a notice in the New Jersey Register on September 8, 2020, announcing that the registration period for approvals has begun. Notably, the notice provides that “[t]his registration requirement applies to specified permits, approvals, and deadlines from a broad range of State and local entities – not just the Department.” It is not clear under the...

Permit Extension Act of 2020 Alters Timing for Applications for Development, and Extends Certain Existing Approvals During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency

On July 1, 2020, Governor Murphy signed the Permit Extension Act of 2020, enacted as P.L. 2020, c. 53, a stand-alone piece of legislation modifying timelines for review of applications for development before the land use boards of the State of New Jersey and tolling existing development approvals that have been adversely affected by the COVID-19 public health emergency. This legislation ends a saga that saw the proposal of an amendment to the Permit Extension Act of 2008, which was enacted following the Great Recession; a conditional veto of that legislation; and the concurrence of both houses of the New Jersey legislature with the language of the conditional veto message. This new law will provide significant help to developers throughout New Jersey who were forced, whether by governmental order or economic infeasibility, to put projects on hold during the course of the present public health emergency. However, there are potential pitfalls of which developers should be aware, as set forth below, including a requirement that all state-level permits that developers wish to have extended be registered. The Permit Extension Act of 2020 provides as follows: Scope: Much like the original Permit Extension Act, this law serves to extend a wide variety of permits, including, but not limited to, soil conservation district approvals, waterfront development permits,...

New Jersey Publishes Formal Stringent Drinking Water Standards for PFOA and PFOS

On June 1, 2020, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) officially published health-based drinking water standards for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). These chemicals have received serious attention from the environmental community in the last several years due to increasing science that has confirmed the harmful impact of PFOA/PFOS on human health and the environment. These new more stringent rules, published in the New Jersey Register, set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) at: 14 parts per trillion for PFOA and 13 parts per trillion for PFOS. The DEP also added PFOA and PFOS to the state’s list of hazardous substances. Site remediation activities and regulated discharges to groundwater of PFOA and PFOS will now have to comply with these new standards. These new formal standards establish a regulatory framework that will provide consistency in remediation activities statewide. It is important to note that PFOA and PFOS are just two of potentially thousands of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (or PFAS). To date Vermont and New Hampshire are the only other two states to set MCLs for PFAS. New York is working on similar standards. New Jersey issued a standard of 13 parts per trillion for perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) in 2018. The federal government has not yet established MCLs for PFAS. While there...

U.S. EPA and New York ESD Provide Updated Guidance Regarding Environmental Work Permitted for During COVID-19 Pandemic

Within the past several days, both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New York Empire State Development Corporation (ESD) have provided updated guidance clarifying the standards for deciding what types of work may proceed at hazardous waste sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. EPA Interim Guidance on Site Field Work Due to Impacts of COVID-19 EPA’s April 10, 2020 interim guidance supplements the previously-issued March 19, 2020 guidance from the Office of Land and Emergency Management. It applies to response actions at cleanup and emergency response sites where EPA is the lead agency or has direct oversight or responsibility for the work, including response action work that may be conducted by states, tribes, other federal agencies, and potentially responsible parties (PRPs). At these sites, EPA will continue to make decisions on a case-by-case basis regarding ongoing site activities, with top priority given to protecting the health and safety of the public and maintaining the health and safety of EPA personnel and other on-site cleanup partners. The guidance also directs Regions to consider other important priorities, such as whether local officials have made specific requests to suspend work, whether on-site workers have tested positive or shown symptoms of COVID-19, and whether social distancing at specific sites is possible. In making decisions to reduce or suspend...

New Jersey Issues Guidance to Assist Land Use Boards in Holding Electronic Meetings and Hearings

In the wake of Executive Order 103 declaring the COVID-19 public health emergency and Executive Order 107 concerning restrictions on public gatherings, most planning boards and zoning boards of adjustment in New Jersey cancelled their scheduled meetings and have since been evaluating how to resume meeting in a manner that complies with social distancing requirements and Executive Order 107. This has left applicants uncertain when and in what manner their applications for development will be considered and decided. Following enactment of emergency legislation to facilitate the conduct of electronic meetings, the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services, has issued guidance to specifically assist planning boards and zoning boards of adjustment with conducting public hearings electronically on applications for development. The guidance, titled “Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustments Operational Guidance – COVID-19: N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1, Recommendations for Land Use Public Meetings in New Jersey,” is a first step in assisting land use boards – some of which have been hesitant to begin holding “virtual” meetings – with the mechanics of arranging for and conducting electronic meetings and public hearings. The Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) requires land use boards to hold meetings at least monthly. Such boards must meet as scheduled unless there is a lack of applications for development to...

Is Your Property Historic? You Might Not Think So, But Always Check!

In a state like New Jersey, land in urban or developed areas is often at a premium, and developers will need to be mindful of whether the property has any historical significance. In addition to the standard approvals required from local planning or zoning boards, one approval that is commonly overlooked is that of the local historic preservation office or commission. These entities are authorized under the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-107 et seq., and are now common in municipalities large and small throughout New Jersey. Where a formal commission exists, applications for development are to be referred to the historic preservation commission for review whenever applications involve property in historic districts or on historic sites identified by the official map or master plan. In other municipalities, there may be an application and approval process separate from the typical land development board. Some are required as part of completeness obligations for applications for development, where others are a separate process from the typical application for development. One active historic preservation commission has been the City of Newark’s Landmarks and Historic Preservation Commission (the “Commission”). This article provides a brief primer on when Commission approval is required, and what developers can expect during the application and approval process in the City of Newark (“the City”)....

Appellate Division Underscores Need for Findings, and Potentially More Testimony, to Approve Reduction of Variance

It’s a common scenario: after a series of public hearings, the scope of variance relief sought is reduced by the applicant or at the direction of the board, and the board then approves the application. A recent unreported opinion from New Jersey’s Appellate Division underscores that the resolution of approval must explain how and why the reduced scope of relief satisfies the variance criteria when the original proposal did not. This may require presentation of additional testimony by the applicant in support of the modifications. In 440 Company-Carriage House, LP v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment for the Borough of Palisades Park, the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the Borough of Palisades Park (“Board”) granted three use variances (along with final site plan approval and certain bulk variance relief) to enable the construction of a 14-story, 121-unit, residential building. The relief granted by the Board represented a substantial reduction from what the applicant-developer had actually sought and presented testimony in support of over the course of a public hearing which extended for nine meetings. The developer had originally applied for use variances to permit a 17-story building, with 154 units. Rather than approving the project as presented, or denying it, the Board, acting on its own, voted to grant the variances with a reduction from 17...

Non-Residential Development Fees – How Much Do I Pay and When?

The Statewide Non-Residential Development Fee Act (the “Act”) has been in full effect for the past three years. Yet, there remains confusion as to how the fee is calculated and when it is required to be paid. There shouldn’t be. Before the Act, both residential and non-residential development fees were governed by the Council on Affordable Housing’s (“COAH”) regulations, and municipalities adopted a form ordinance provided by COAH. COAH’s regulations, for instance, permitted all development fees to be collected with up to 50% due at the issuance of a building permit and 50% due at the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The same regulations permitted municipalities to collect the full fee at the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The current Act makes it crystal clear that “the payment of non-residential development fees … shall be made prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each development.” The Act also lays out a process for preliminary and final assessments of fees, including a notice required upon issuance of a construction permit to the tax assessor to conduct an initial evaluation of the fee. Thus, any requirement for the payment of a development fee as a condition of the issuance of a construction permit would be inconsistent with the Act. The Act provides...