Judge Strikes Down Repeal Of Downtown Redevelopment Plan In Toms River

TOMS RIVER, NJ — A state judge has struck down a Toms River ordinance that repealed the downtown redevelopment plan.

The ruling, issued Wednesday by Superior Court Judge Sean D. Gertner, invalidated the ordinance passed Dec. 18, 2024, that repealed the Downtown Core Redevelopment Plan, Robbins Parkway Redevelopment Plan and Waterfront Redevelopment Plan.

Gertner ruled that both Peter Pascarella, the former assistant township attorney who also sat on the Planning board, and former councilman Justin Lamb had conflicts of interest in their involvement with the ordinance that were significant enough to invalidate the council's action to approve it.

He also ruled the township did not follow the requirements of municipal land use law regarding legal notices of the plan to introduce and vote on passage of the repeal ordinance.

Mayor Daniel Rodrick said the ruling does not materially change what will happen with regard to development in the downtown area.

“The township will immediately begin the process of repealing the plan again, and we will follow the judge's recommendations during the repeal. Residents do not want 150-foot buildings downtown,” Rodrick said.

"A developer would need an agreement from my administration to exceed the zoning downtown," he said, adding that he will not approve any agreement to build high rises.

Meridia Toms River 40 Urban Renewal filed the lawsuit against Toms River days after the Township Council meeting where the ordinance repealing the redevelopment plan was approved by a 4-2 vote of the council.

The repeal was part of Mayor Daniel Rodrick's plan to halt redevelopment projects in the downtown area, especially the controversial apartment building planned for the property at Irons and Water streets that had previously been home to the Red Carpet Inn.

The apartment building plan, first proposed with two 10-story towers and later revised to six stories, was halted in 2024 by Rodrick, who said the developer had missed deadlines for financing and other matters. Meridia Toms River 40 and Capodaglia Property Group filed a lawsuit in that matter as well, accusing the town of dragging its feet — at Rodrick's direction, on needed paperwork and actions to push the project into missing deadlines.

That lawsuit remains active.

In the ruling Gertner issued Wednesday, he found in favor of Meridia on six counts, including the developer's allegations that Peter Pascarella and Justin Lamb had conflicts of interest in voting on the ordinance.

Pascarella, who was the assistant township attorney at the time, had a conflict of interest when he provided his opinion on the proposed repeal to the Toms River Planning Board and voted on the repeal as part of the planning board, Gertner wrote.

Pascarella also had a conflict because as the township attorney, he had provided legal advice to the council on the question of whether the council vote needed to be a supermajority to approve the ordinance, Gertner said.

Meridia contended the ordinance needed to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the council because the property owners in the area affected by the Downtown Core Redevelopment had submitted a petition opposing the change. Pascarella told the township and Meridia that it would not.

In addition, Pascarella was the attorney who drafted the default notices to Meridia during the process of canceling the redevelopment agreement for the Red Carpet Inn site, Gertner said.

Serving as both assistant township attorney and as voting member of the Planning Board created a conflict because, Gertner said, Pascarella had a political interest in seeing the repeal ordinance passed.

"This Court finds that once called upon to offer an opinion that touched upon the Ordinance's passage, he was confronted with a conflict of interest. ... Mr. Pascarella did more than confess his opinions about it; he voted on it. Having approved the Ordinance, he was conflicted from offering an opinion on the contours of the procedures to pass it," Gertner wrote.

"Once he offered legal advice as to how the Municipality may address the ordinance on second reading, his vote on the matter was impermissible, particularly in light of his previous participation in the Township's allegations that the Plaintiff breached the redevelopment agreement," he wrote.

Gertner said Lamb, who is a real estate attorney in addition to his work as a police officer in Lavallette, also was conflicted because he leased space from a property his father owned in the downtown area affected by the ordinance.

"It is the mere existence of a conflict and not its actual effect that requires the official action to be invalidated," Gertner wrote. "While there is no proof of fraud or improper motive on the part of the councilman, a perceived conflict of interest is as harmful to the public's confidence in its representatives as the actual existence of such a conflict."

"In an era replete with lack of public trust and confidence in the actions of public officials, the appearance of impropriety standard is paramount to be upheld," he wrote.

Gertner also ruled the township violated municipal land use laws regarding the legal notice they are required to provide to property owners when changing zoning. The township contended that because it was reverting to the previous Master Plan zoning by repealing the redevelopment plans, that it only needed to announce the planned ordinance as it does other ordinances. Gertner ruled the town needed to deliver written notice to the property owners of the planned repeal.

"Because the Council adopted a regulation that fundamentally clashed with the Master Plan, it was required to adhere to the protocols of NJSA 40:55D-62(a). The undisputed record shows the Township Council failed to meet these statutory requirements; therefore the ordinance must be invalidated," he wrote.