Opinion ID: 1530450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 1992 Grandparenting Decision

Text: Notwithstanding the DEP's conclusion that application of the Policy to Gateway's project would be unfair, the ALS argues that the sole justification for the waiver was the provision for intercept parking in the original permit. Its argument continues that the elimination of intercept parking converts the project into one that differs from the original project. The ALS concludes that the waiver of the Policy does not apply to the new project. It also concludes that the DEP's 1993 decision to grandparent the Policy into the major modification permit is a new decision that renders irrelevant the ALS's failure to appeal from the issuance of the original permit in 1989. The Appellate Division likewise concluded that the DEP's decision to grandparent the waiver in 1992 was a final administrative determination. 290 N.J. Super. at 510, 676 A. 2d 161. We disagree. Director Weingart notified Gateway on January 3, 1992, that the DEP would continue the waiver of the Policy for the same reason expressed in the November 20, 1986 letter  the unfairness of applying the Policy to the project given the project's unique administrative history. By 1992, the DEP had eliminated the requirement of intercept parking and asked Gateway to make appropriate modifications to its project. Given Gateway's enhanced reliance on the waiver during the interim, however, the initial justification for the waiver remained. Consequently, the DEP did not make a second decision to waive the Policy. Instead of reevaluating the criteria applicable to the 1986 decision, the DEP merely confirmed the legal conclusions and factual findings contained in its November 1986 letter. Contrary to the conclusion of the Appellate Division, 290 N.J. Super. at 510, 676 A. 2d 161, the DEP's January 3, 1992 letter reveals that the DEP regarded the Policy as inapplicable to the proposed major modification. The letter states that the DEP requested only the information needed to evaluate the proposed changes in the project, as we will not need to reevaluate issues resolved during the review of the original permit application. Because the DEP had resolved the issue during the review of the application for the original permit, it did not reevaluate the waiver. The DEP's January 3, 1992 letter merely confirmed that, despite the elimination of intercept parking, the conditions in the original permit, including the waiver of the Policy, would continue. Thus, the waiver of the Policy, which the ALS had not challenged after the DEP issued the original permit, remained an unreviewable condition of the original permit.