Bill to Suspend Non-Residential Affordable Housing Fee Passes Senate; Stalled in Assembly

The Senate passed S2485 by a vote of 36-0 on Monday. This bill, co-sponsored by Senators Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) and Christopher “Kip” Bateman (R-Somerset), provides for a moratorium through July 1, 2010, on the 2.5 percent non-residential development fee which was part of the A500 bill signed into law by Governor Corzine in July 2008. The Senate bill also suspends any “growth share” obligation as a result of non-residential development constructed during the moratorium and provides that, in most instances, funds that were already paid to municipal or state coffers as a result of A500 be refunded to the developer.

The Assembly version remains in the Housing and Local Government Committee since its filing on February 9.

For a copy of S2485, click here.

Licensed Site Professional Bill on Governor’s Desk

On Monday, the Senate and Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of identical bills which will allow private contractors to have more authority to oversee and perform site cleanups.

While environmental groups expressed concern about oversight, legislators and the Department of Environmental Protection touted the legislation as a practical and necessary move to eliminate a backlog of more than 20,000 contaminated sites across the state.

According to the Star Ledger:

The bill, expected to be signed by Gov. Jon Corzine, creates a 13-member board of public and private officials, including environmental advocates. The board will license consultants and engineers to perform cleanups. State officials can review their work, but will focus primarily on setting timetables, enforcing rules and directly overseeing the most complicated projects.

Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex), one of the bill’s primary sponsors, said current policies, which require government approval every step of the way, do more harm than good.

“The system is irretrievably broke,” he said. “It is just a drain on our economy and a drain on our environment.”

The measure passed the Senate and Assembly by wide margins yesterday.

The board will be required to audit at least 10 percent of all cleanup efforts, and environmental advocates are concerned that’s not enough to ensure contractors — called licensed site professionals — are getting the job done right. Jeff Tittel of the Sierra Club said he is nervous business interests on the board will consistently overrule other voices.

“This is really selling out public health and safety,” he said.

Elaine Makatura, a spokeswoman for the Department of Environmental Protection, defended the changes.

“Nothing in the law compromises cleanup standards,” she said.

For the full text of A2962, click here.

For the full Star Ledger article, click here.

Appellate Division Declines to Require Redevelopment Area Notice Be Served Upon Commercial Tenants

Municipalities withstood another attack on their broad powers under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -49 et seq. (“LRHL”), last week while the rights of commercial tenants remained status quo. In Iron Mountain Information Management Inc. v. City of Newark, the Appellate Division held that a commercial tenant is not generally entitled to advance notice of a municipality’s consideration of a building as part of an area in need of redevelopment – unless its unit is noted in the tax assessor’s records pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6(b)(3).

The court specifically noted that the increased constitutional protections and explicit notice of potential use of eminent domain by a government agency mandated in Harrison Redevelopment Agency v. DeRose, 398 N.J. Super. 361 (App. Div. 2008), does not apply to commercial tenants and remains limited to property owners or others specifically entited to statutory notice under the LRHL. The court also found that the forty-five day period for bringing a timely appeal applies to commercial tenants of properties in designated redevelopment areas notwithstanding that the tenant did not receive individualized written notice of the redevelopment designation or the hearings leading up to the designation.

Bill Providing That Wind, Solar Developments are Permitted Use on Industrial Tracts Passes Legislature, On to Governor

A bill amending the Municipal Land Use Law which permits the location of renewable energy facilities in areas zoned for industrial use has passed the Assembly by a 62-14-2 vote, and will now move on to the Governor’s desk. The bill passed the Senate in February by a 36-3-1 vote.

The bill defines a “renewable energy facility” as “a facility that engages in the production of electric energy from solar technologies, photovoltaic technologies, or wind energy.” The bill does not define “industrial district.” However, to be considered a permitted use, the renewable energy facility must be sited on a parcel or parcels of land comprising 20 or more contiguous acres.

Initial questions that come to mind, which will undoubtedly be decided in the courts down the road if this measure is signed by Governor Corzine, are:

1. What exactly is the definition of an “industrial district”? and

2. How strictly will zoning officers, land use boards and courts interpret the phrase “owned by the same person or entity” with respect to the 20 acre minimum requirement where an applicant is a contract purchaser of multiple contiguous parcels?

Here is the full language of A-2550:

1. A renewable energy facility on a parcel or parcels of land comprising 20 or more contiguous acres that are owned by the same person or entity shall be a permitted use within every industrial district of a municipality. For the purposes of this section: “renewable energy facility” means a facility that engages in the production of electric energy from solar technologies, photovoltaic technologies, or wind energy.

2. This act shall take effect immediately.

For a copy of A-2550, click here.

Bill to Allow Farmers to “Harvest” Wind and Sun Moving Through Legislature

A bill which would allow farmers who own preserved farmland or who operate ongoing commercial farms to add another “crop” to their “harvest” is progressing through both houses in the Legislature. The development of wind and solar power facilities on certain farmland would be specifically permitted under this legislation. While the Board of Agriculture has opposed the bill, a statement from the Agricultural Secretary-designee, Douglas H. Fisher, indicates that, on balance, the bill is favored by the administration: “This bill will give farmers an additional source of revenue to keep them doing the job they love, and it’s vital for the economy,” said Fisher.

According to the Star Ledger, there has been substantial debate between factions within the environmental and agricultural community over the bill:

Key sponsor Sen. Bob Smith (D-Middlesex) said he and other lawmakers have worked hard to allay the concerns of critics. He argued recent amendments have made the bill “very, very reasonable,” noting farmers on preserved land would be allowed to produce just 10 percent more power than they use on their farm annually. And he noted other farmers will be restricted from dedicating more than 10 acres to wind or solar.

“It’s another incentive to provide carbonless energy, and we need to move on that issue,” he said.

But [Michele Byers, executive director of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation], whose group has been joined in its opposition by the New Jersey Audubon Society, Pinelands Preservation Alliance and Association of Environmental Commissions, among others, accused lawmakers of cloaking a bad bill in green, comparing it with the rush to ethanol fuel, with its negative, unforeseen consequences.

“How many thousands of acres of rooftop or derelict parking lot do we have in this state?” she said. “There are so many alternatives to putting (solar and wind) on farmland.”

Jeff Tittel of the state Sierra Club chapter called the bill a win-win for the environment in New Jersey. Tittel, who in the past vociferously opposed a bill that would have allowed commercial uses on farms, said thousands of solar installations are needed to begin making an impact on New Jersey’s power needs.

“For solar we’ll need a couple hundred thousand acres of rooftops, the tops of sound barriers, wherever we can put them,” he said. “Most of the wind turbines will go offshore, but we also need to see where else they can go. Given the drop in farm income we’re seeing, it makes sense.”

Peter Furey, executive director of the New Jersey Farm Bureau, said he believes the bill strikes the right balance between protecting agriculture and taxpayers by requiring that farming continue on the land and placing restrictions on how much solar or wind is gathered.

“Renewable energy is a good thing,” he said. “It’s good for society. We’re reducing the use of fossil fuel and substituting clean energy in a way that helps farmers.”

For a link to the Senate version, S1538, click here.

For the full article, click here.