BOCINA HOMES CORPORATION v. JON CORZINE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1046-08T1

BOCINA HOMES CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v.

JON CORZINE, GOVERNOR OF

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

and THE NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS

WATER PROTECTION & PLANNING

COUNCIL,

Respondents.

_______________________________________________________

August 15, 2011

Submitted April 12, 2011 - Decided

Before Judges Yannotti, Skillman and Roe.

On appeal from the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council.

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, attorneys for appellant (Dean A. Gaver, of counsel; Steven Firkser, on the briefs).

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney for respondents (Nancy Kaplen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Barbara L. Conklin, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Bocina Homes, the developer of a 12.34-acre parcel in Far Hills Borough, which is located in the planning area of the Highlands Region, filed this appeal challenging the validity of Executive Order 114 issued by former Governor Corzine and the Regional Master Plan (RMP) issued by the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council under the authority of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, N.J.S.A. 13:20-1 to -35. Appellant's arguments are similar to arguments presented in In re Highlands Master Plan, Executive Order 114, Memorandum of Understanding Between the Highlands Council and the Council on Affordable Housing, November 12, 2008 Resolution Extending Deadlines for 88 Municipalities, August 12, 2009 Resolution Extending Deadlines, and Adoption of Guidance for Highlands Municipalities that Conform to the Highlands Regional Master Plan, Docket No. A-1026-08T1 and Toll Brothers, Inc. v. Corzine, Docket No. A-0923-08T1, in which we are filing opinions simultaneously with the filing of this opinion. Appellant's arguments do not warrant any discussion

in addition to the discussion contained in those opinions.

R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

For the reasons set forth in our opinion in Toll Brothers, we dismiss as premature the part of the appeal challenging the designation of appellant's property as being located in the "Existing Community Zone -- Environmentally Constrained Sub-Zone." We affirm in all other respects.