NJ Supreme Court Rules On Montclair Real Estate Dispute

In a precedential decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Monday that public officials can’t vote on zoning applications if they are members of a church or other organization that has property located within 200 feet.

The ruling stems from 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.

The original proposal from Fountain Square Development would have required waivers from the redevelopment plan, including a use variance, a one-story height increase and a parking requirement exception.

The property was purchased in 2012 by Montclair Kensington Urban Renewal, which submitted a site plan to the Montclair Planning Board a month afterwards.

Grabowski argued that Fried and Lewis were motivated to vote in favor of the application because assisted living residents could be added to the church’s membership. He also claimed that Fried and Lewis hoped to arrange for free parking for church members in the assisted living facility’s parking lot.

In court documents, Montclair Kensington and Fountain Square have characterized Grabowski’s charges as a “rival real estate developer’s tactic to delay and disrupt construction of an essential assisted living facility.”

The two developers added that Grabowski was seeking an impractical rule that would automatically disqualify public officials who are members of organizations from participating in many land-use applications.

Grabowski’s original complaint was dismissed by a trial court in 2012, which ruled that held that the membership of Fried and Lewis in the Unitarian Church, “no matter how involved it may be,” did not warrant disqualification.

In Monday’s ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that “if the organization has an interest in a zoning application, such an official has a disqualifying indirect personal interest and should refrain from deliberating and voting on the zoning application.”

Following their decision, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court for resolution.

See the full court decision online here.

Send Montclair news tips to eric.kiefer@patch.com