Monroe’s attempt to use eminent domain to obtain three lots was overturned by the state Appellate Court.
By: Al Wicklund
MONROE The township cannot use eminent domain government seizure of land for public good to take three residential lots at the corner of Half Acre and Prospect Plains roads, a state Appellate Court ruled last week.
Judges Donald G. Collester Jr. and Ariel A. Rodriguez said condemnation a time-honored way for local, state and federal governments to get land for such things as roads, parks and dams can’t be used to control development. The judges’ opinion was released March 9.
Last year, a state Superior Court decision gave the township the right to buy the land, three lots totaling about five acres, to be part of an 11-acre park surrounded by the Clearbrook, Concordia and Greenbriar at Whittingham retirement communities. The township owns the other six acres.
That decision was voided by the Appellate Court decision.
Attorney John Hoffman, who represented the township in the case, which started two years ago, said the township could appeal, but Mayor Richard Pucci said Wednesday he didn’t believe the township would go the appeal route.
"We have the land there for a park and the remaining property is zoned for residential.
"What we want to avoid is what you see in parts of Woodbridge, where virtually every corner has a convenience store or a gas station," the mayor said.
Mr. Pucci said he was surprised by the appeals judges’ ruling.
The lawyers for the property owners said the township attempted to take the land improperly by using condemnation to block possible development.
Attorney Paul Tannenbaum, acting for the land owners, said the township, to prevent development of the land, decided to put a park in the area.
Township Engineer Ernie Feist said the township was interested in restricting development in that area.
"The tract is surrounded by three large retirement communities whose residents have been vocal in opposition to use of the land for anything other than residential," Mr. Feist said.
The judges said, in their written decision, "Condemnation cannot be used as a pretext to discourage or prevent particular use of property. That is the function of the master plan and zoning ordinances.
"In short, condemnation an involuntary acquisition of property is not the means to achieve zoning, the regulation of use of the property."