ARBORWOOD I, II, III CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS, INC., et al. v. BOROUGH OF LINDENWOLD, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3977-05T23977-05T2

A-3992-05T2

ARBORWOOD I, II, III CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATIONS, INC., and COLONIAL PINES

LINDENWOLD ASSOCIATES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

TRENT COURT,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOROUGH OF LINDENWOLD,

BOROUGH OF LINDENWOLD

PLANNING BOARD, and THE

MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE

BOROUGH OF LINDENWOLD,

Defendants-Respondents.

________________________________________________________

 

Argued October 1, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges Stern, A. A. Rodr guez and Collester.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-3492-04.

James M. Vogdes, III, argued the cause for

appellants Arborwood I, II and III Condominium

Associates, Inc.

Dante J. Romanini argued the cause for appellant

Colonial Pines Lindenwold Associates (Wolf, Block,

Schorr and Solis-Cohen, attorneys; Mr. Romanini and

Myles A. Seidenfrau, on the brief).

Robert L. Messick argued the cause for respondent

Borough of Lindenwold Planning Board.

John B. Kearney argued the cause for respondent

Borough of Lindenwold (Kearney & Schweitzer, attorneys; Mr. Kearney relies on brief filed by

Mr. Messick on behalf of Borough of Lindenwold Planning Board).

PER CURIAM

The matter is remanded for reconsideration in light of Gallenthin v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007). Specifically, the Law Division shall determine whether and the extent, if any, to which Gallenthin applies to the findings under N.J.S.A. 40A:12-5 in this case, and in light of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6(b)(5) and (7) and -6(c), to the determination that there was "substantial evidence" to support the finding of "an area in need of redevelopment." The remand proceedings shall be completed on or before November 30, 2007, after which any party may file a new or amended notice of appeal. The appellant(s) shall order the transcript of remand proceedings, and any supplementary briefs shall be served and filed within twenty-one days of the delivery of the transcript. We retain jurisdiction.

We recognize that Gallenthin dealt with the construction of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(e) in light of the constitutional provision limiting redevelopment to "blighted areas" and that the trial judge recognized the requirement of a finding of blight for purposes of section -5(a) and (d). See also N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6(c). Gallenthin also refers to the appropriate scope of review. See Gallenthin, supra, 191 N.J. at 372-73. See also N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6(b)(5),(7).

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3977-05T2

October 17, 2007