Beattie Padovano wins appeal vacating NJDEP Waterfront Development Permit

On December 9, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided IMO Hartz Mountain Industries’ Waterfront Development Individual Permit No. 0911-01-1001.12; LUP190001. This decision has important implications for waterfront development projects and environmental regulations in New Jersey.

Case Background

The case arose from a dispute over a waterfront development permit issued to Hartz Mountain Industries by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) on May 21, 2020. The permit allowed for the construction of two new fourteen-story high-rise residential towers connected by a six-story garage in the Lincoln Harbor section of Weehawken, along the Hudson River. Rock Eagle Properties, LLC, a neighboring property owner, challenged the permit, raising several concerns about compliance with environmental regulations.

Key Issues and Arguments

Rock Eagle contended that the proposed development encroached on the Hudson River Walkway conservation restriction, which was a condition of a prior permit issued to Hartz. Additionally, Rock Eagle argued that the project did not comply with the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) High-Rise Structures Rule, the Traffic Rule, and the Filled Water’s Edge Rule. Rock Eagle also questioned the NJDEP’s measurement of the riparian zone and its treatment of an existing parking lot. Facing these substantive challenges, NJDEP and Hartz Mountain sought a remand to consider further additional evidence, which the Court granted. On remand, NJDEP reaffirmed its issuance of the permit. Rock Eagle appealed.

Appellate Division’s Findings

Upon review, the Appellate Division found that NJDEP failed to provide proper notice to the public during the remand process, thereby depriving from Rock Eagle and the public the right to participate in the permitting process. The Appellate Division wrote, “It is difficult, if not impossible, to review this record without concluding [NJDEP] . . . accepted additional, important information on remand — without any public notice — to shore up its initial decision that Hartz had complied with N.J.A.C. 7:7-15.14(b)(4), which would otherwise lack adequate support in the record.”

Implications of the Decision

This decision underscores the importance of strict conformance in the permitting process for waterfront developments. It also highlights the need for thorough review and compliance with environmental regulations to ensure that development projects do not adversely impact conservation areas and other protected zones, and otherwise satisfy the esoteric regulations that govern waterfront development.

For developers and property owners, this ruling serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in obtaining permits for waterfront projects and the potential for legal challenges. It is crucial to work closely with legal and environmental experts to navigate these challenges and ensure compliance with all relevant regulations.

For more information on how this decision may impact your projects or for assistance with navigating similar legal challenges, please contact our team at Beattie Padovano.