N.J. Court Strikes Down $10M Bloomfield Bond Ordinance

BLOOMFIELD, NJ — A New Jersey Appellate Court has struck down a 2014 Bloomfield Township ordinance that issued almost $10 million in bonds to buy land for a public park that had previously been approved by the Township Planning Board for the construction of a 104-unit townhouse known as Lion Gate.

On Monday, the court reversed an earlier trial court decision that had dismissed a coalition of residents’ claims that Bloomfield Councilman Nicholas Joanow’s ownership of a home adjacent to the proposed park constituted a conflict of interest and that he shouldn’t have been allowed to vote on the ordinance.

The appellate court’s Oct. 17 ruling will overturn the trial court’s decision and invalidate the township’s bond ordinance, which appropriated $10,500,000 for the acquisition and improvement of a tract of land and authorized the issuance of $9,975,000 in township bonds or notes to finance part of the cost, the panel of judges wrote.

• Read the full court opinion here.
• See the text of Bloomfield Ordinance #3729 here.

In their written opinion, the appellate court panel of judges referenced a long-running legal dispute in Montclair between real estate developer Dick Grabowski and the municipality over the proposed construction of an 88-unit assisted living facility on Church Street.

Grabowski had previously filed suit against the township, claiming that ex-mayor Jerry Fried and former councilman Nick Lewis shouldn’t have voted on an ordinance that amended the municipal development plan to allow construction of the proposed facility because Fried and Lewis belonged to the adjacent Unitarian Universalist Congregation Church.

• See related article: NJ Supreme Court Rules On Montclair Real Estate Dispute

“We deem Joanow's conflict far less attenuated than the indirect interest that was deemed sufficient to warrant disqualification by the court [in Grabowsky],” the appellate court wrote.

The court continued:

“It is clear under Grabowsky that if Joanow held a leadership position in an organization that owned property within 200 feet of the Lion Gate property, he would have a disqualifying conflict of interest that would preclude him from deliberating and voting on the Ordinance. See id. at 561. Here, Joanow has a more direct personal interest as he himself, rather than an organization to which he belongs, owns property directly abutting the Lion Gate site.”

The judges recognized that Joanow's motives in participating in the passage of the ordinance “may well have been laudatory and motivated by his desire to advance the public interest, preserve open space, or limit construction in flood-prone areas.”

However, the panel added the following caveat:

“Here, development of the Lion Gate property as a park rather than a 104-unit townhouse project clearly "would have a financial impact on [Joanow's] property, whether it be good, bad or whatever… In any event, Joanow's ownership of property immediately adjacent to the Lion Gate site, standing alone, was sufficient to disqualify him from voting on the ordinance… Because of the disqualifying interest of Joanow in its subject matter, the remedy is that the ordinance must be invalidated.”

The court concluded:

“We caution that, in the event the council seeks to reintroduce the ordinance, it must do so in a manner that comports with the OPMA and does not involve Councilmember Joanow in the deliberative or voting process.”

• See related article: Council Disagrees Over Lionsgate-Scientific Glass Project
• See related article: Residents Concerned About Overcrowding, Flooding At Lion Gate Development

Patch file photo: Nick Joanow

Send local news tips, photos and press releases to eric.kiefer@patch.com