Court Opinion

ID: 9952625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 14:10:42.314555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:59.793786
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                               APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
        This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
     internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-0990-22

WELDON MATERIALS, INC.,
a Corporation of the State of New
Jersey,

          Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PLANNING BOARD OF THE
BOROUGH OF WATCHUNG and
BONNIE BURN REDEVELOPERS
URBAN RENEWAL, LLC,

     Defendants-Respondents.
_____________________________

                   Argued March 12, 2024 – Decided March 20, 2024

                   Before Judges Enright, Paganelli and Whipple.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Somerset County, Docket No. L-1567-21.

                   William B. Butler argued the cause for appellant
                   (Butler & Butler, attorneys; William B. Butler, on the
                   briefs).

                   Francis P. Linnus argued the cause for respondent
                   Planning Board of the Borough of Watchung (Law
            Office of Francis P. Linnus, attorneys; Francis P.
            Linnus and Steven H. Finkelstein, of counsel and on the
            brief).

            Nicole Bianca Dory argued the cause for respondent
            Bonnie Burn Redevelopers Urban Renewal, LLC
            (Connell Foley, LLP, attorneys; Kevin J. Coakley, of
            counsel; Nicole Bianca Dory, of counsel and on the
            brief; Herschel P. Rose, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Weldon Materials, Inc. (Weldon) appeals from an October 20, 2022 order

dismissing its prerogative writs complaint with prejudice.         Weldon also

challenges an April 1, 2022 interlocutory order denying its motion to amend its

complaint to address certain claims involving a conflict of interest. We dismiss

the appeal as moot.

      This appeal arises from the final site plan approval by respondent Planning

Board of the Borough of Watchung (Planning Board) of an area of land known

as the "Bonnie Burn Road Redevelopment Area" (Property). Weldon is a rock

quarry located across from the Property on Bonnie Burn Road.

      Prior to the Planning Board granting final site plan approval, the Borough

of Watchung (Borough) enacted an ordinance detailing development of the

Property in satisfaction of its affordable housing requirements (Redevelopment

Plan). The Redevelopment Plan directed development of "an inclusionary multi-

                                                                           A-0990-22
                                       2
family housing development" on the site, to consist "of a maximum" of 230

units, including 46 low- and moderate-income units. The Redevelopment Plan

also set forth specific requirements for redeveloping the property, referred to by

the parties as "Section K."

      In pertinent part, Section K directed the proposed redeveloper to submit,

as part of its redevelopment application, a "Traffic Impact Study" to address

existing and proposed road networks, the capacity of the existing roadways,

anticipated traffic volumes, the physical structure of the existing roadway, and

any problem areas in the road network, including "unsafe intersections and

vertical or horizontal alignments." Section K also stated that the Planning Board

could condition its approval on outside agency approval for site entrance and

exit and necessary off-tract improvements.

      When hearings began in this matter in October 2019, Weldon asked the

Planning Board to decline to review an application filed by BNE-Real Estate

Group (BNE), the predecessor applicant to respondent Bonnie Burn

Redevelopers Urban Renewal, LLC (BBUR), noting the application included a

proposed traffic signal, which the parties agreed only the Union County

Engineering Department (Union County) had jurisdiction to approve. Weldon

argued that because BNE's application did not satisfy the requirements for

                                                                            A-0990-22
                                        3
installation of the traffic signal, Union County would deny the traffic signal

application, and thus, the Planning Board should postpone any hearing on the

site plan application until after Union County issued its decision. Weldon also

more generally opposed the proposed development, arguing it would increase

traffic on Bonnie Burn Road.

      The Planning Board elected to continue the hearing, concluding the traffic

signal was only one facet of the application. BNE subsequently removed itself

as the property developer and the Planning Board permitted BBUR to substitute

as the applicant, incorporating all prior testimony and exhibits flowing from

BNE's application. BBUR's application included a proposed traffic signal at the

intersection of the development entrance and Bonnie Burn Road.

      In October 2021, the Planning Board passed Resolution No. PB-21-R12,

granting BBUR preliminary site plan approval.          The resolution stated the

Planning Board's finding that "the traffic issue will be resolved satisfactorily in

the event Union County approves the traffic signal at the site entrance," and if

Union County denied approval or changed the site plan, BBUR would have to

"return to the Board with an alternate site plan to address traffic issues presented

by the project." The resolution also included the following express condition:

            This approval is specifically conditioned upon Union
            County's approval of the traffic signal at the entrance to

                                                                              A-0990-22
                                         4
            the site and if the traffic signal is not approved by the
            County or if the County requires other site plan
            changes[, BBUR] shall return to the Board with a new
            site plan depicting all alternate traffic controls to be
            reviewed by the Board. This condition shall carry over
            to be a condition of final approval and need not be
            satisfied for the Board to consider plans for final site
            plan approval.

      In December 2021, the Planning Board granted final site plan approval,

which was adopted by way of Resolution PB-22-R5 on January 18, 2022. The

resolution noted that work could not commence "prior to compliance" with the

terms and conditions of both the preliminary and final site plan approval.

      In December 2021, Weldon filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs

in the Law Division.     It subsequently amended its complaint to include a

challenge to the Planning Board's January 18, 2022 resolution. Counts one and

two of the amended complaint alleged the Planning Board's resolutions were

arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable and the proposed development "w[ould]

have [a] significant negative impact to the existing traffic on Bonnie Burn

Road," violating "Section K" of the Redevelopment Plan. Count three alleged

Weldon's complaint divested the Planning Board of jurisdiction to issue final

site plan approval.

      In March 2022, Weldon moved to amend its complaint to add two

additional counts, alleging a conflict of interest against the Planning Board's

                                                                             A-0990-22
                                       5
engineering consultant, the mayor, and one council member. As already noted,

on April 1, 2022, the trial court entered an order, denying Weldon's motion to

amend the complaint to include the conflict-of-interest claims. Twelve days

later, Union County approved BBUR's traffic signal application.

      On October 20, 2022, the trial court entered an amended order dismissing

Weldon's complaint with prejudice. In a comprehensive, forty-six-page opinion

accompanying the order, the judge found, in part, "Weldon's claim that [BBUR's

a]pplication failed to comply with [Section] K of the Redevelopment Plan is

belied by the record as well as the plain language of [Section] K." Further, the

judge stated, "it cannot be disputed that [BBUR] submitted a Traffic Engineering

Evaluation that contained all of the analyses required by [Section] K." The

judge also concluded the Planning Board had "no obligation to consider off-site

[traffic] concerns since planning boards lack the authority to consider such

effects." Finally, the judge stated he "strongly disapprove[d] of gamesmanship"

and "[i]t [wa]s clear . . . [Weldon] only filed [its c]omplaint in a transparent

attempt to stay the Board's vote for final site plan approval for [BBUR's

a]pplication." Less than two months later, Weldon filed this appeal.

      Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-8 and N.J.S.A. 39:4-120.7, the New Jersey

Department of Transportation (NJDOT) reviewed Union County's approval of

                                                                          A-0990-22
                                       6
BBUR's traffic signal application, and on June 15, 2023, it reversed Union

County's approval, finding BBUR's traffic signal application did not satisfy

various conditions for approval. Therefore, the NJDOT's decision defeated the

condition precedent to the Planning Board's approval of BBUR's redevelopment

application.1

      In July 2023, BBUR moved to supplement the appellate record to include

the NJDOT decision. We granted the motion. BBUR also notified us that, as a

result of the determination by the NJDOT, BBUR would return to the Planning

Board with alternative traffic control measures and seek approval of an amended

application. In August 2023, Weldon moved to voluntarily dismiss as moot its

conflict-of-interest claim against the former Borough engineering consultant.

Weldon declined to withdraw the balance of its appeal because it had not

received BBUR's amended site plan and the Planning Board had not commenced

its hearings on BBUR's amended application. We granted Weldon's motion to

dismiss on September 8, 2023.

      On appeal, Weldon renews its argument that BBUR's application failed to

satisfy the traffic requirements of the Redevelopment Plan, rendering the

1
  The NJDOT separately concluded that contrary to the parties' understanding,
Somerset County, not Union County, had jurisdiction over Bonnie Burn Road.

                                                                         A-0990-22
                                      7
preliminary and final site plan approvals—and the trial court's affirmance of the

same—arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. Weldon also argues the trial

court erred in denying its motion to amend its complaint to include its conflict-

of-interest claims. We need not consider these arguments on the merits because

the NJDOT's decision renders Weldon's appeal moot.

      "Mootness is a threshold justiciability determination rooted in the notion

that judicial power is to be exercised only when a party is immediately

threatened with harm." Stop & Shop Supermarket, LLC v. Cnty. of Bergen, 450

N.J. Super. 286, 291 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp.,

415 N.J. Super. 301, 311 (App. Div. 2010)).        "[C]ourts normally will not

entertain cases when a controversy no longer exists and the disputed issues have

become moot." Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Loc. 400 v. Borough of Tinton Falls,

468 N.J. Super. 214, 224 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting De Vesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J.

420, 428 (1993)). Further, our courts generally "do not resolve issues that have

become moot due to the passage of time or intervening events." Wisniewski v.

Murphy, 454 N.J. Super. 508, 518 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting State v. Davila,

443 N.J. Super. 577, 584 (App. Div. 2016)). "An issue is 'moot when [the]

decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the

existing controversy.'" Redd v. Bowman, 223 N.J. 87, 104 (2015) (quoting

                                                                           A-0990-22
                                       8
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 221-22 (App. Div.

2011)).

      Here, the Planning Board conditioned its preliminary and final site plan

approvals on Union County's approval of the traffic signal referenced in BBUR's

application. Moreover, this condition was expressly reflected in Resolution No.

PB-21-R12. Further, the parties acknowledged that if Union County denied the

traffic light application, BBUR would have to return to the Planning Board with

proposed alternative traffic control measures.      Although Union County

subsequently approved the traffic signal, the NJDOT reversed that decision.

Thus, the NJDOT's reversal of Union County's approval nullified the Planning

Board's actions, rendering Weldon's appeal moot. Given our determination, it

is unnecessary to address Weldon's remaining arguments.

      Dismissed as moot.

                                                                         A-0990-22
                                      9