BrachEichler LLC Blogs Feedhttp://www.bracheichler.com/?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10en-us17 Dec 2017firmwisehttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssHappy Thanksgiving! http://www.bracheichler.com/?t=40&an=71864&format=xml&p=643320 Nov 2017Blogs<img style="padding-left: 29px;" src="http://www.bracheichler.com/C3F493/assets/images//Thanksgiving-2017.jpg" hspace="0" vspace="0" align="absmiddle" alt="" border="0" width="551" height="648" /><br /> <br type="_moz"> <br />http://www.bracheichler.com?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10New Jersey Approves Constitutional Amendment to Earmark Monies for Environmental Clean-Up http://www.bracheichler.com/?t=40&an=71585&format=xml&p=643308 Nov 2017Blogs<p>Nearly 70 percent of New Jersey voters approved a ballot measure on Tuesday that will ensure that monies paid by polluters will be used to actually clean-up contamination and that future governors will not be able to redirect the funds. This issue was on the ballot as the result of New Jersey&rsquo;s settlement with ExxonMobil.&nbsp; Governor Christie settled with ExxonMobil for more than $225 million but a cap of funds for natural resource damages meant that the majority of the damages collected would not be used for the restoration and remediation of contaminated land.&nbsp; The outcome of the ballot question and the resulting constitutional amendment will cause controversy in determining if and how much money will be allocated to a particular site, if any, &nbsp;for remediation and restoration but the money will have to be used for environmental restoration and not directed to the general funds.</p>http://www.bracheichler.com?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Appellate Division Reverses DEP Decision Regarding Innocent Purchaser http://www.bracheichler.com/?t=40&an=68951&format=xml&p=643322 Sep 2017Blogs<p>The Appellate Division reversed a final agency decision by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (&ldquo;DEP&rdquo;) regarding who and what is defined as a &ldquo;person&rdquo; under the Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act (&ldquo;Brownfield Act&rdquo;). Cedar Knolls 2006, LLC (&ldquo;Cedar Knolls&rdquo;) applied to the DEP to receive an innocent purchaser grant, which request was denied by DEP. DEP determined that Cedar Knolls did not qualify as a person under the Brownfield Act because of the way in which it acquired the property. The DEP denied the application stating that Cedar Knolls was not the same person who acquired the property prior to the 1983 date to become eligible for an innocent purchaser grant. Walter Higginson, who purchased the property in 1977, bequeathed the property upon his death to his wife through two different trusts. When those trusts terminated, the contents were transferred to their son and then to Cedar Knolls. Nine years after the transfer to Cedar Knolls, it applied for an innocent purchaser grant to assist with the clean-up of the contamination of the property.<br /> <br /> The Appellate Division referred to the definition in the Industrial Site Recovery Act (&ldquo;ISRA&rdquo;) of a &ldquo;change in ownership&rdquo; finding that &ldquo;although these definitional sections are not among the parts . . . that became the Brownfield Act, they nevertheless reflect the Legislature&rsquo;s concerns with respect to changes of ownership at the time the innocent party grants were established.&rdquo; ISRA provides that a &ldquo;change in ownership&rdquo; is not &ldquo;a transfer where the transferor is the sibling, spouse, child, parent, grandparent, child of a sibling, or sibling of a parent of the transferee.&rdquo; The Court found that, although Cedar Knolls is an LLC, because the transfers were made between family members that would not equate to a change in ownership, Cedar Knolls could qualify as a &ldquo;person&rdquo; under the Brownfield Act. The Court determined that the Legislature was more concerned with the &ldquo;substance of ownership&rdquo; and &ldquo;continuity&rdquo; rather than the precise legal form of the entity. Because this property was transferred within Mr. Higginson&rsquo;s family and he would have otherwise qualified as an innocent purchaser, the Court reversed the DEP&rsquo;s finding as to whether Cedar Knolls is a person to qualify as an innocent purchaser.</p>http://www.bracheichler.com?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10NJDEP Updates Soil Remediation Standards for 19 Compounds http://www.bracheichler.com/?t=40&an=68936&format=xml&p=643321 Sep 2017Blogs<p>The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (&ldquo;NJDEP&rdquo;) published revisions to the soil remediation standards for 19 contaminants. These updates bring the New Jersey standards more in line with the USEPA IRIS-based standards. Soil remedial standards for 11 compounds, including 7 PAHs, are now higher than previously. The updated soil remediation standards are operative as of September 18, 2017.<br /> <br /> NJDEP also provided the following information regarding an error in the published update: <em>A courtesy copy of the Notice of Administrative Change may be viewed at <a href="http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adminchg.html" target="_blank">www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adminchg.html</a>. Please note that the Notice contains errors for two contaminants. A Notice of Administrative Correction will be published in the October 16, 2017 New Jersey Register (a courtesy copy of the Notice of Administrative Correction can also be viewed at <a href="http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adminchg.html" target="_blank">www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adminchg.html</a>).</em></p>http://www.bracheichler.com?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Automatic Approval Of Site Plan Application Not Thwarted By Board’s “Denial Without Prejudice” http://www.bracheichler.com/?t=40&an=68320&format=xml&p=643321 Aug 2017Blogs<p>The validity of an automatic approval of an amended site plan application was affirmed by the Appellate Division in a procedurally complex series of consolidated cases. (Shipyard Associates, L.P v. Hoboken Planning Board; City of Hoboken v. Shipyard Associates, LP; Shipyard Associates, LP v. Hudson County Planning Board and Hudson County Board of Chosen Freeholders)</p> <p>The developer, Shipyard Associates, was seeking an amended site plan approval to construct two additional buildings in a location that was originally earmarked for tennis courts, and it submitted its application to the planning board in October 2011. The City subsequently sued Shipyard&nbsp; in March 2012 to enforce its (the City&rsquo;s) purported rights concerning the tennis courts under a Developers Agreement.</p> <p>Thereafter, on July 10, 2012, the Planning Board refused to consider the merits of Shipyard's amended application, although Shipyard's attorney and witnesses were present on the scheduled July 10 hearing date to present the application. Instead of hearing the application, the Board denied it &quot;without prejudice,&quot; over Shipyard's objection, on the theory that the Board lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application while the City's lawsuit was pending. In turn, Shipyard sued the Planning Board, asserting that the Board's refusal to adjudicate the merits of its application within the statutory timeframe set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-61, resulted in its automatic approval of the application.</p> <p>The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court&rsquo;s order that Shipyard&rsquo;s application was entitled to an automatic approval. The Appellate court stated that in denying the application without prejudice, the Board was unlawfully granting itself an extension of time to hear the application, until the City's lawsuit was decided.&nbsp; The court stated &quot;[w]e cannot countenance such an end-run around the statute,&quot; citing South Plainfield Properties, L.P. v. Middlesex County Planning Board, 372 N.J. Super. 410, 417 (App. Div. 2004) . According to the court, the Board could have heard the application and granted it conditioned on the outcome of the City's lawsuit, (or denied it) but the Board could not lawfully refuse to hear the application, which is what it did here.</p> <p>Another lesson from the case, said the court, it is that the rule of law is paramount and cannot be sidestepped to avoid deciding unpopular land use applications. The court stated &ldquo;we have read the transcript of the July 10, 2012 Board hearing, in which objectors were interrupting the proceedings and shouting, &lsquo;we want tennis courts.&rsquo; However, the Planning Board was obligated to hear Shipyard's application, no matter how controversial it was.&rdquo;</p>http://www.bracheichler.com?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10NJDEP Publishes Updated Fees under SRRA http://www.bracheichler.com/?t=40&an=66976&format=xml&p=643321 Jun 2017Blogs<p>The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has increased its fees for the 2017-2018 fiscal year for annual remediation costs and permit fees. The new fees can be found at NJDEP&rsquo;s website by clicking <a href="http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/fees" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>http://www.bracheichler.com?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10NJDEP Posts Compliance Notice for Properties with Institutional or Engineering Controls http://www.bracheichler.com/?t=40&an=65041&format=xml&p=643320 Apr 2017Blogs<p>The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is alerting responsible parties who have obtained No Further Action Letters and have an outstanding obligation to ensure the continued protectiveness of a remedial action that involves an institutional control or an engineering control. NJDEP has provided a link to the document that includes information regarding responsible parties, a list of non-compliant sites, steps to be taken to regain compliance, and the penalties for non-compliance. The information can be found at: <a href="http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/enforcement/post_nfa_compliance_notice.pdf" target="_blank">www.nj.gov/dep/srp/enforcement/post_nfa_compliance_notice.pdf.</a></p>http://www.bracheichler.com?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10NJ Supreme Court Finds Municipalities Must Address "Gap Years" Housing Need http://www.bracheichler.com/?t=40&an=63270&format=xml&p=643302 Feb 2017Blogs<p>The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled on the &quot;gap years&quot; (1999-2015) issue that has preoccupied municipalities and developers for almost two years and that effectively continued to prevent the provision of affordable housing from moving forward. The gap years are the years in which the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) failed to adopt lawful regulations and fair share numbers. The NJ Supreme Court&rsquo;s January 18, 2017 opinion makes clear that fair share need numbers must be calculated for the gap years. Thus most, if not all, municipalities will face higher fair share obligations that their fair share housing plans must address.</p>http://www.bracheichler.com?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Happy Thanksgiving! http://www.bracheichler.com/?t=40&an=61258&format=xml&p=643321 Nov 2016Blogs<img style="padding-left: 29px;" src="http://www.bracheichler.com/C3F493/assets/images//Thanksgiving_2016.jpg" hspace="0" vspace="0" align="absmiddle" alt="" border="0" width="551" height="484" /><br /> <br type="_moz" />http://www.bracheichler.com?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10NJ Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Appeal on "Gap Year" http://www.bracheichler.com/?t=40&an=59415&format=xml&p=643312 Sep 2016Blogs<p>On September 8, 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of the Appellate Division's decision on what has become known as the &quot;gap year&quot; issue. The gap years include the years 1999 through 2015, during which time COAH failed to adopt lawful regulations. The issue on appeal is whether the trial courts should establish fair share numbers reflecting the need for affordable housing that was generated during those years. Municipalities have argued that this need does not have to be considered as persons needing housing during those years have found housing elsewhere. They also do not want to be &ldquo;penalized&rdquo; for COAH&rsquo;s failure to act.</p>http://www.bracheichler.com?t=39&format=xml&anc=389&LPA=3215&p=6433&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10