Opinion ID: 1530450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: 1993 Major-Modification Permit

Text: Like the grant of the original permit, the DEP's approval of Gateway's major-modification permit on November 9, 1993 was a final administrative determination. Consistent with the regulations in effect in 1993, the DEP, after accepting Gateway's application, held a public hearing and notified interested parties, including the ALS. See N.J.A.C. 7:7-4.4(a)(1) to -4.8 (describing DEP review of CAFRA applications). As with the 1989 permit, the major-modification permit allowed Gateway to commence construction subject to numerous conditions. Accompanying the decision was a twenty-page summary report that outlined the DEP's factual findings. Consequently, the November 1993 major modification permit provided unmistakable written notice of the finality of the DEP's decision. The ALS timely appealed to the Appellate Division within forty-five days, as required by R. 2:4-1(b). The ALS contends, however, that it may appeal not only from the 1993 major-modification permit, but also from the 1989 permit. By appealing from the 1993 decision, the ALS hopes to resuscitate its expired right to appeal from the permit decision made four years earlier. Under the regulations in effect in 1993, the DEP distinguished between requests for permit modifications that were minor and those that were not minor or major. N.J.A.C. 7:7-4.10 (amended July 18, 1994). Minor modifications were those which do not result in a significant change in the scale, design, use or impact of the project as approved. N.J.A.C. 7:7-4.10(b). The determination of the significance of a modification rested within the sole discretion of the Division. Ibid. Requests for minor modifications were to be acted on within thirty days and shall generally be approved by the Division. N.J.A.C. 7:7-4.10(b); N.J.A.C. 7:7-4.10(c) (amended July 18, 1994). In contrast, major modifications required an amended permit application, including a new CP-1 form, and any additional information necessary to review the proposed modification. N.J.A.C. 7:7-4.10(d)(1) (amended July 18, 1994). Thus, while minor modifications were approved as a matter of course, major modifications received more thorough review. Even so, the DEP, when reviewing Gateway's modifications, did not review the entire project from its inception. Although DEP reviewed Gateway's application for a major-modification permit as it would an application for a new permit, the DEP limited its review to the proposed modifications. Generally speaking, judicial review of administrative action is limited to determining whether the action is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable or unsupported by substantial credible evidence. Texter v. Department of Human Servs., 88 N.J. 376, 382, 443 A. 2d 178 (1982). Given the unique history and scope of this project, we cannot conclude that the DEP abused its discretion by deciding to review only the modifications to Gateway's project. Intercept parking was only one part of Gateway's original project. Thus, the major-modification permit, which eliminated that parking, did not describe essentially a different project. As the DEP noted in the major-modification permit decision, the balance of the proposed development is unchanged. The major-modification permit merely reduced the number of parking spaces and substituted the commercial space and day-care center with a fashion outlet shopping center. Moreover, the modified project generally fits within the footprint of the originally proposed intercept parking lot. The project still contains 2034 hotel rooms, a 20-acre dredge disposal site, a 205-acre wildlife management area, and a 120-acre wetland mitigation bank. According to the DEP's statement when it issued Gateway's major modification permit, the project as modified will produce a lesser environmental effect than the original project. The amended project also provides public benefits in lieu of intercept parking. Those benefits include the wetlands mitigation bank, the dredge spoils disposal site, a luxury tax on hotel rooms paid to Atlantic City, and the wildlife management area. When the DEP waived its Policy in 1986 and issued a conforming CAFRA permit in 1989, the ALS should have appealed those decisions at that time. The ALS's failure to challenge those determinations precludes it from challenging them now. Our review of the record and the ALS's briefs leads us to conclude that the ALS has never objected to Gateway's subsequent modifications, except insofar as those modifications relate to the DEP's waiver of the Policy. Similarly, the ALS has questioned the lack of public benefits from the subsequent modifications only in connection with its challenge to DEP's waiver. Indeed, at oral argument before us when asked whether the ALS intended to challenge the changes to the project in the major-modification permit, counsel for the ALS responded: I don't think those are really issues of serious right of appeal because they are all agency discretion.... I'm not looking to get involved in the nit-picking of the wetlands mitigation or dredging or anything else, I'm going to the heart of the matter [with the waiver issue.] In sum, the only issue before us is whether the modifications require us to set aside the DEP's waiver of the Policy. We conclude that the modifications do not justify that result. Because we hold that the ALS did not timely challenge the DEP's decision to waive the Policy, we need not reach the issue of whether such a challenge is barred by the doctrines of latches and estoppel.