The City of Jersey City brought a motion to enforce the City Board of Adjustment’s resolution which required the developer to convey to the city fee simple absolute title to seven affordable housing units. The Superior Court ordered the enforcement but the developer appealed alleging that the court erred in granting defendant’s relief without a complaint that sought injunctive relief or some other form of appropriate relief.
The court looked at the language in the Municipal Land Use Law and stated that variances and conditions are not self-executing. If a municipal agency learns that a violation has occurred, its enforcement power is utilized through the use of a complaint for injunctive relief, specific performance or other appropriate action. In this case, the City sought enforcement via a motion rather than a complaint but there was not cause of action or substantive court order brought in relation to the enforcement motion. And therefore, the enforcement order was not predicated on anything. Furthermore, the court dismisses the plaintiff’s allegation that full discovery would be necessary once the City filed a complaint to go along with the enforcement order because this issue had been decided in a companion case. The Court reversed the trial court because the City failed to file a complaint for injunctive relief, specific performance or other appropriate action.
Washington Commons, Inc. v. City of Jersey City, 2010 WL 4537829 (N.J. Super. A.D. 11/12/2010).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1544681.html
