Meadowlands Regional Development Agency v. State

• Decision Date: 19 October 1970
• Citation: 270 A.2d 418,112 N.J.Super. 89
• Parties: MEADOWLANDS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE of New Jersey et al., Defendants. Guy G. GALIARDO et al., Plaintiffs, v. HACKENSACK DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION et al., Defendants. In the Matter of the APPLICATION OF the MEADOWLAND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY et al., Louis Montenegro and Phillip Mellillo, Jr. et al., and Town of Secaucus et al. CHEVAL BROS., Plaintiff, v. STATE of New Jersey et al., Defendants.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 89

112 N.J.Super. 89

270 A.2d 418

MEADOWLANDS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE of New Jersey et al., Defendants.

Guy G. GALIARDO et al., Plaintiffs, v. HACKENSACK DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION et al., Defendants.

In the Matter of the APPLICATION OF the MEADOWLAND REGIONAL

DEVELOPMENT AGENCY et al., Louis Montenegro and

Phillip Mellillo, Jr. et al., and Town

of Secaucus et al.

CHEVAL BROS., Plaintiff, v. STATE of New Jersey et al., Defendants.

Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division.

Oct. 19, 1970.

Alfred A. Porro, Jr., Lyndhurst, Ralph W. Chandless, Hackensack, Lewis M. Holland, Jersey City, for plaintiffs.

William J. Brennan, III, Trenton, for defendants.

TRAUTWEIN, J.S.C.

This case concerns the trial of consolidated causes of action seeking to invalidate the Hackensack Meadowlands Reclamation and Development Act, L.1968, c. 404, hereinafter 'the act,' on constitutional and other grounds. The matters consolidated are:

1. Meadowlands Regional Development Agency, et als.

v.

State of New Jersey, et als.

(Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division--Bergen County, Docket No. C--1620--68)

2. Guy G. Galiardo, et als.

v.

Hackensack Development Commission, et als.

(Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division--Bergen County, Docket No. C--1620--68)

3. In the Matter of the Application of the Meadowland Regional Development Agency, et als., Louis Montenegro and Phillip Mellillo, Jr., et als. and Town of Secaucus, et als.

(Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A--771--68, 979--68 and 791--68 (consol.))

4. Counts 3 and 4, mounting constitutional attacks upon the act, of seven causes of action in lieu of prerogative writs (mandamus seeking to otherwise compel riparian grants filed in the Superior Court, Law Division (two in Hudson County, five in Bergen) consolidated under the caption--

Cheval Bros. v. State of New Jersey, et als.

(Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division--Bergen County, Docket No. L--28712--68 P.W.)

The proceeding brought originally in the Appellate Division under N.J.S.A. 1:7--4 seeking to void the act on the narrow ground that the legislation was a special or local law lacking compliance with the procedural requirements of N.J.Const. (1947), Art. IV, § VII, par. 8, and N.J.S.A. 1:6--1 et seq. has been held in abeyance after oral argument on cross-motions. The Appellate Division found in an unreported Per curiam opinion that while defendant's admissions obviated the need for taking proof on the mechanics of enactment, I.e., the procedural conditions precedent to the passage of special or local law, with defendant contending that the act was general and plaintiff alleging that it was special, observed that evidence expected to be introduced in the remaining actions pending in the Chancery Division would be of help in their determining whether the act was general or special. It therefore withheld further action until the Chancery Division actions attacking the act on other grounds were decided by the trial court. However, it granted permission to the parties to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues over which it had original jurisdiction for transmittal to it, even though not needed for the determination of issues within the jurisdiction of the Chancery Division. In such event, however, the Chancery Division was directed not to make findings of fact upon the issues exclusively within the Appellate Division jurisdiction under N.J.S.A. 1:7--4, except as such findings were a necessary incident to the resolution of other issues within the trial court's jurisdiction. Lastly, the Chancery Division was given control over the reception of evidence to be transmitted to the Appellate Division, its competency, quality and quantity, to the same extent as if the issues to be decided by the Appellate Division were within the jurisdiction of the Chancery Division.

I

L.1968, c. 404, is a general statute. As will be demonstrated hereinafter this conclusion of law is a necessary incident to the resolution of several issues raised in the proceedings with the original jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus it has been necessary to make findings from proofs submitted, even though these very proofs are to be transmitted to the Appellate Division for independent findings and conclusions related to issues within its original jurisdiction, I.e., is the act special or general, as such finding relates to N.J.S.A. 1:7--4? Defendant has conceded that it has not conformed to the requirements of N.J.S.A. 1:6--1 et seq., which outlines the procedures peculiar to the passage of special or local legislation. Thus, if the Appellate Division finds, from the proofs transmitted, that the act is special or local, it must fall despite any findings or conclusions the trial court makes upholding its validity. If the Appellate Division concludes that the act is general, then the interdiction of R.S. 1:6--1 et seq. has no application.

Plaintiffs contended during the trial that the act was a special or local law, irregularly passed without public notice of the intention to apply therefor and without the general object thereof expressed as required by N.J.Const. (1947), Art. IV, § VII, par. 8, and that the act was further invalid because it was not enacted in response to a petition from the local governments subject thereto, as provided in Art. IV, § VII, par. 10 of the Constitution and coordinate statutes. ¹

In order to place the issue of general Versus special or local law in proper perspective, a brief summary of the act's provisions is necessary. Art. 1 declares that there are approximately 21,000 acres of salt water swamps, meadows and marshes, commonly known as meadowlands, in the lower Hackensack River basin, and lists among the objectives of the act: the orderly, comprehensive development of the Hackensack Meadowlands in order to provide more space for industrial, commercial, residential, public, recreational and other uses; the development of the stateowned lands as an asset for the support of the free public school system; the fulfillment of the obligation of the State to assert its interest, and the provision of special protection from air and water pollution and special provision for solid waste disposal and the preservation fo the delicate balance of nature. Art. 2 defines the boundaries of the district. It encompasses some 18,000 acres in 14 communities lying in Hudson and Bergen Counties. Art. 3 establishes the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission as a public corporate body with succession and sets forth the broad ambit of its powers toward the attainment of the objectives set forth in Art. 1. Art. 4 establishes the Hackensack Meadowlands Municipal Committee, consisting of the chief executive of each constituent municipality within the district or his alternate. The Committee is empowered to review, prior to final action, all codes and standards, master plans, or amendments, development and redevelopment or improvement plans or other major decisions of the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission. Should the Committee formally reject the matters submitted by the Commission, the Commission may not take any final action on the matter except by a five-sevenths vote of its full membership. Art. 5 requires the Commission to develop, adopt and promulgate a master plan for the physical development of all lands lying within the district. It includes comprehensive provisions relating to the development of the district. Among them are provisions dealing with land use, sewerage, utilities, water transportation and residential standards. Others include clearance, redevelopment and like matters, schools, libraries, parks, playgrounds and other public facilities. Additionally, the plan may provide for the distribution and density of population, the appearance of the community within the district, water pollution, waste disposal and other matters related to the planned development of a model community. To implement the Commission's broad planning powers, Art. 5 further provides that no constituent municipality shall take any action respecting land use or building construction within the district which is inconsistent with the master plan's provisions. Moreover, the Commission must review and approve any municipal project within the district which contemplates the use of public funds. The Commission is also empowered to review and regulate all subdivisions, site plans, buildings and other uses within the district, to insure that they conform with its master plan. Furthermore, the Commission is empowered to act as a regional redevelopment agency under the Redevelopment Agencies Law, L.1945, c. 306 (N.J.S.A. 40:55C--1 et seq.), thus rendering it eligible to receive federal renewal grants.

Art. 6 empowers the Commission to issue bonds and notes. Art. 7 authorizes it to condemn land within or without the district when necessary, notwithstanding that the land in question may already be in the hands or under the control of a municipality or other public agency. However, § 37 of the act provides for payments to municipalities in lieu of taxes. Art. 8 provides for special assessments against real estate located in improved districts which the Commission is empowered to establish. Assessments against public lands can be paid from State funds. Art. 9 contains the inter-municipal tax-sharing feature by which the constituent municipalities share the tax benefits and burdens resulting from the Commission's development and redevelopment activities.

Art. 10 contains the act's general provisions. Among them is one empowering any public body to cooperate with the Commission. Additionally, the article provides that the Commission may enter into contracts with one or more municipalities, counties or other public agencies for the operation of public works and improvements. The remainder of the act establishes the procedure for the determination of title to the meadowlands, both...