MARAZITI FALCON, LLP Attorneys for Appellant, City of Hoboken
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
150 JOHN F. KENNEDY PARKWAY JOSEPH J. MARAzITI) JR. MARAZITI CHRISTOPHER H. FALCON SHORT HILLS) NEW JERSEY 07078 DIANE ALExANDERt FALCON, LLP BRENT T. CARNEY PHONE: (973) 912-9008 ANDREW M. BREWER ATTORNEYS AT LAW FAX: (973) 912-9007 JOANNE VOS WWW.MFHIAW.COM CHRISTOPHER D. MILLER*t HEATHER A. PIERCE PATRICK D. MESSMER t ALSO ADMITTED IN NY •ALSO ADMITTED IN DC Direct Dial: 973-912-6817 E-mail Address:[email protected] rviay 22, 2015 VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Attn: Joseph H. Orlando, Clerk Appellate Division Clerk's Office Hughes Justice Complex 25 W. Market St. P.O. Box 006 Trenton, NJ 08625-0006 Re: I/M/O SHIPYARD ASSOCIATES LP WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATE NO. 0905-07-0001.2 WFD 110001 Docket Nos. A-004873-13T4 & A-005004-13T4 Dear Mr. Orlando, This firm represents Appellant City of Hoboken ("Hoboken") in the above-referenced consolidated appeals. Please find an original and five (5) copies of the following documents enclosed for filing: Initial Brief of Hobokeni Appendix of Hoboken; Request for Oral Argument; and Proof of Service. Please return one copy of the aforementioned documents marked "filed" in the enclosed self-addressed, postage paid stamped envelope. Please charge any fees associated with this filing to this firm's account #141216. Very tru yours, ~7 ~-~~~=--~~c _ 'C::: /.'~~/;;?::'Z/~~--- . ------. Christopher D. Miller c: All Counsel on attached Service List ABA-EPA LAw OFFICE CLIMATE CHALLENGE PARTNER IIMIO SHIPYARD ASSOCIATES LP WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Docket Numbers: A-005004-13T4 and A-004873-13T4 Attorney Service List Cheryl R. Clarke, Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey, Office of the Attorney General Dept. of Law and Public Safety, Div. of Law Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 tviarket Street P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625 Attorney for Respondent, New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection Kevin J. Coakley Genevieve L. Fairclough Connell Foley LLP 85 Li vingston Ave. Roseland, NJ 07068 Attorneys for Respondent, Shipyard Associates LP Eric S. Goldberg H. Matthew Taylor Stark & Stark 993 Lenox Dr. Bldg. 2 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Attorneys for Appellant, Hudson Tea Buildings Condominium Association, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................... 1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................. 2 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ......................................... 4 I. The Shipyard Planned Unit Development ................... 4 II. The 1997 Permit ......................................... 6 III. Shipyard's Original Permit Application .................. 7 IV. The Department's Denial of Shipyard's Original Permit Application ................................................... 7 V. Shipyard Resubmits a Revised Permit Application ......... 8 VI. The Department's Issuance of the Permit ................ 10 VII. Hoboken, HTBCA and FBW File Separate Requests for a Hearing on the Permi t ........................................ 11 VIII. Hoboken, HTBCA, FBW and Shipyard Submit Correspond~nce to the Department in Support of their Respective Positions on the Hearing Requests ............................................. 12 IX. The Department Issues an Order Denying the Appellants' Hearing Requests and Affirming the Department's Decision to Issue the Permit ............................................. 12 LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANT CITY OF HOBOKEN .................. 13 STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................ 13 I. HOBOKEN HAS A STATUTORY RIGHT TO A HEARING ON THE PERMIT PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 58:10A-7 ................................ 14 II. HOBOKEN HAS A RIGHT TO A HEARING ON THE PERMIT BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT HOBOKEN'S OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN A PARTICULAR PARCEL OF PROPERTY WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO, AND WHICH IS PHYSICALLY ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY TRAVERSING THROUGH, THE PROJECT SITE ................. 19 i III. HOBOKEN HAS A RIGHT TO A HEARING ON THE PERMIT BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT HOBOKEN'S INTERESTS IN PROTECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE .......... 22 IV. HOBOKEN HAS A RIGHT TO A HEARING ON THE PERMIT BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT HOBOKEN'S INTERESTS IN THE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL PHASE OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT THE PROJECT SITE ................. 29 A.The Department's Conclusion That It Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over The Amenities Of The Shipyard Puu Was Incorrect As A Matter Of Law ............................... 30 B. Hoboken Has A Statutory Interest In The Completion Of the Recreation Improvements As The Final Phase Of The Shipyard PUD ........................................................... 31 V. HOBOKEN HAS A RIGHT TO A HEARING ON THE PERMIT BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT HOBOKEN'S INTERESTS UNDER THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM ................... 33 VI. THE PERMIT VIOLATES N.J.A.C. 7:7E-3.18 BECAUSE THE PERMIT PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE NEW HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA IN HOBOKEN ........................ 35 VII. THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE HAS BECOME LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT CONSTITUTES "GOOD CAUSE" FOR REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE PERMIT PURSUANT TO N.J.A.C. 7:7-4.11 .... 36 VIII. THE PERMIT VIOLATES N.J.A.C. 7:7E-7.14 BECAUSE THE LONGEST LATERAL DIMENSION OF THE SUBJECT HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS NOT ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE HUDSON RIVER .. 39 IX. THE PERMIT VIOLATES N.J.A.C. 7:7E-7.2 AND -3.43 BECAUSE THE PERMIT PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE NEW HOUSING IN A WATER AREA WHERE THE EXISTING PILINGS ARE NOT STRUCTURALLY SOUND ........ 41 X. THE PERMIT VIOLATES N.J.A.C. 7:7E-7.2 AND -3.43 BECAUSE THE PERMIT PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING PILINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSING ON NEW PILINGS ....... 44 XI. THE PERMIT VIOLATES N.J.A.C. 7:7E-3.48 BECAUSE THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT INCORPORATE THE REQUIRED AMOUNTS OF USABLE LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE .............................. 45 ii XII .. THE PERMIT VIOLATES N.J.A.C. 7:7E-3.15 BECAUSE IT PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE IMPROPER DRIVING OF PILINGS, FILLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSING IN INTERTIDAL AND SUBTIDAL SHALLOWS • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 8 XIII. THE PEru~IT VIOLATES N.J.A.C. 7:13-10.2 BECAUSE IT PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE 25-FOOT RIPARIAN ZONE .................................... 49 XIV. THE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION TO ISSUE THE PERMIT WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS A}JD L~REASONABLE BECAUSE THE PROJECT INVOLVES CONSTRUCTION ON UPLANDS AND THEREFORE REQUIRES AN UPLANDS WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ........................ 52 XV. THE DEPARTMENT'S ORDER IS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND UNREASONABLE AND CONTRARY TO LAW BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RULES AT N.J.A.C. 7:8 ............................................................. 52 XVI. THE PERMIT VIOLATES N.J.A.C. 7:7E-3.43 BECAUSE THE PERMITTEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WATER DEPENDENT USES ARE INFEASIBLE AT THE PROJECT SITE ............................... 54 XVII. THE PERMIT VIOLATES N.J.A.C. 7:7E-7.14 BECAUSE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC .... 59 XVIII. THE PERMIT VIOLATES N.J.A.C. 7:13-10.3 BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEivlENT RULES ........................................ 61 A.The Department's Decision Violates the Express and Implied Legislative Policies of the Waterfront Development Law and Coastal Zone Management Rules .............................. 62 CONCLUSION .................................................... 64 TABLE OF CITATIONS Cases Bor. of Avalon v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 403 N.J.Super. 590, 598 (App. Div. 2008) ..................... 23 Cunningham v. Dept. of Civil Serv., 69 N.J. 13, 24 (1975) .21, 33 iii v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 405 N.J.Super. 478 Di v .) .................................................. 14 Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992) ....................................................... 13 Hutton Park Gardens v. Town Council of W. Orange 1 68 N.J. 543 1 564 (1975) ................................................... 28 In re Amico/Tunnel Carwash l 371 N.J.Super ................. 21, 22 In re Amico/Tunnel Carwash l 371 N.J.Super. 199, 212 (App. Div. 2004) ........................................................ 21 In re Crowley, 193 N.J.Super. 197, 209 (App. Div. 1984) ....... 20 In Re NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025241, 185 N.J. 474, 482 (2006) ... 20 In re NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025241, 185 N.J. 474, 487 (2006) ... 14 In re Riverview Development, LLC, 411 N.J.Super. 409, 426 (App. Div. 2010) ............................................... 21, 33 In re Stream Encroachment Permit, 402 N.J.Super. 587, 597 (App. Div. 2008) ................................................... 13 New Jers Shore Builders Ass'n v. of Jackson, 199 N.J. 38 1 54 (2009) ................................................ 23 Newfield Fire Co. No. 1 v. Borough of Newfield, 439 N.J.Super. 2 0 2, 2 0 9 (App. Di v. 2 0 15) . 2 8 Pinelands Preservation Alliance v. State Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 436 N.J.Super. 510, 524 (App. Div. 2014) ............. 13, 20, 62 Spalt v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 237 N.J.Super. 206, 212 (App. Div. 1989) ......................... 21 univ. Cottage Club of Princeton N.J.