JACKSON – Preserving open space has been a topic during recent Township Council meetings. However, the town’s attempt to do so in 2023 has been blocked by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The court ruled that the township improperly used its eminent domain authority to seize privately owned land as part of a land swap with a private developer. It found Jackson officials had exceeded its legal authority and did not deal fairly with the property owners, Bellevue, Jackson, LLC and Getzel Bee, LLC.
Jackson Township’s 2023 land swap ordinances (Ordinance 5-23 and amended Ordinance 7-23) authorized an exchange of 43 acres of municipal land along White Road for a 35-acre parcel on Leesville Road owned by Bellevue Estates, LLC. The goal was to move a planned private school complex.
Bellevue Estates developer Mordechai Eichorn had planned to build a four-school educational complex and dormitories on Leesville Road, which faced strong community opposition regarding traffic in that area.
Jackson officials agreed to trade approximately 43 acres across dozens of lots on White Road (near the border of Lakewood) in exchange for the Leesville Road property, which the township planned to preserve as open space.
The governing body faced legal challenges however as the land swap, particularly the municipality’s use of eminent domain to acquire certain properties to facilitate the deal, resulted in significant litigation. The New Jersey Appellate Court struck down the township’s condemnation of the properties, ruling that the municipality misled property owners by initially claiming the land was for open space land when its actual intent was for a private developer land transfer.
The court opinion written by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner affirmed a lower court ruling that blocked the condemnation of the two parcels that were privately owned that the township sought to acquire and then transfer to a developer for a different property that officials wanted to preserve for open space.
Rabner added that eminent domain statutes and case law from federal or state courts do not authorize the type of land swap that Jackson officials had used through the passage of a series of the 2023 ordinances which allowed the land exchange with a private developer. The agreement called for the township to condemn the two privately owned parcels of land and sign them over to the developer who in turn would convey different property to Jackson for open space use.
The land swap agreement was finalized in the spring of 2024. Then-Mayor Michael Reina, told The Jackson Times at that time that “by closing on this property, Jackson Township has eliminated potential development on this land for eternity.”
The Court stressed that while communities can use eminent domain to acquire land for a legitimate public purpose, they are prohibited from condemning a property owner’s property to exchange it for another property that would serve the public.
The municipality maintained that the transaction served a public purpose as it would permanently preserve open space. However, that reasoning was rejected by the NJ Supreme Court as the condemned properties themselves were not intended for public use. The parcels would actually become a developer’s property without any restrictions that would require the remaining open space would benefit the public.
The case was compared to similar federal eminent domain decisions that involved redevelopment plans for public purposes.
According to the judges, Jackson had sought to use condemned land and transfer it from one private owner to another outside an integrated public development. This transfer from private owner to the developer would then raise questions as to a private purpose that was intended.
Allowing such a transaction could invite abuse according to the court opinion and would stray from the Constitutional requirement that private property be taken for public use only.
The Justices were critical of the township officials’ conduct throughout the condemnation process which ran contrary to long standing state law that requires officials to act honestly and fairly and has put into question whether the governing body failed to meet that standard as its ordinances and communications with the property owners did not fully disclose that the parcels would eventually be transferred to a private developer instead of being preserved for open space.
The public purpose for the taking of the land was described by the justices as being vague, inaccurate and pretextual at times. By last year, the land exchange had already taken place. The NJ Supreme Court has not yet ordered a specific remedy but has instead sent it back to the trial court to decide what relief should be provided to the property owners.
