ASBURY PARK PRESS v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL BOROUGH OF TINTON FALLS, MONMOUTH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5806-04T55806-04T5

ASBURY PARK PRESS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH

OF TINTON FALLS, MONMOUTH COUNTY

PLANNING BOARD, and CPG TINTON

FALLS, LLC., a New Jersey Limited

Liability Company,

Defendants-Respondents.

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued May 23, 2006 - Decided August 8, 2006

Before Judges Coburn, Collester and Lisa.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Monmouth County, L-802-05.

Peter V. Koenig argued the cause for appellant

(Lomurro, Davison, Eastman & Munoz, attorneys;

Michael D. Schottland, of counsel; Mr. Koenig,

on the brief).

William W. Northgrave argued the cause for

respondents Mayor and Council of Borough of

Tinton Falls (McManimon & Scotland, attorneys;

Mr. Northgrave, of counsel and on the brief;

Erin K. Law, on the brief).

Peter S. Falvo argued the cause for respondent

CPG Tinton Falls Urban Renewal, LLC.,

(Ansell, Zaro, Grimm & Aaron, attorneys;

James G. Aaron, of counsel and on the brief;

Seamus Curley, on the brief).

Mark R. Aikins, attorney for respondent

Monmouth County Planning Board.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Asbury Park Press, filed this action in lieu of prerogative writs on February 25, 2005. The suit challenges three ordinances adopted by defendant Mayor and Council of the Borough of Tinton Falls. The first ordinance created a commercial zone abutting the plaintiff's land that allowed construction of shopping centers. That ordinance, which has never been challenged heretofore, was adopted in 1996. On November 22, 2004, the governing body of Tinton Falls adopted Ordinance 04-1135, which adopted a redevelopment plan for the area in question here. On December 21, 2004, the governing body adopted Ordinance 04-1137, which made a technical correction to Ordinance 04-1135 but did not change its substance.

On defendants' motion, Judge Lawson dismissed plaintiff's action as untimely under Rule 4:69-6 because it was filed beyond the time allowed by that rule. Plaintiff concedes that its complaint was filed out of time, but argues that Judge Lawson erred in failing to enlarge the time in accordance with Rule 4:69-6(c), which permits enlargement when the case involves "(1) important and novel constitutional questions; (2) informal or ex parte determinations of legal questions by administrative officials; and (3) important public rather than private interests which require adjudication or clarification." Borough of Princeton v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Mercer County, 169 N.J. 135, 152 (1975) (quotation marks omitted).

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lawson in his thorough and carefully considered written opinion of June 6, 2005.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5806-04T5

 

August 8, 2006