TOMS RIVER – A Superior Court judge has struck down Toms River’s repeal of its Downtown Waterfront Redevelopment Plan, ruling that procedural requirements under state law were not met.
In a 31-page opinion issued February 25, Superior Court Judge Sean D. Gertner entered judgment in favor of Meridia Toms River 40 Urban Renewal LLC on multiple counts and concluded the ordinance “must be invalidated.”
The decision focuses specifically on the Township’s repeal of the redevelopment plan. It does not resolve the separate and still-pending lawsuit over the downtown waterfront project at West Water and Irons streets.
Mayor Daniel Rodrick said the municipality will move quickly in response. “The township will immediately begin the process of repealing the plan again, and we will follow the judge’s recommendations during the repeal,” Rodrick said in an interview. “Residents do not want a city of 150-foot-tall buildings downtown.”
Meridia challenged the Township’s repeal ordinance, arguing it violated both the Municipal Land Use Law and the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.
Protest Petition
Judge Gertner addressed four primary issues in his ruling, starting with the Protest Petition, which was signed by thirteen landowners subject to the Redevelopment Plan.
The court determined that Meridia retained title to the redevelopment area and that the protest petition filed by affected property owners was valid. It further decided that because Meridia held title to the redevelopment areas, the repeal ordinance required a two-thirds vote of the governing body. It did not receive that threshold and was therefore void.
Meridia characterized the ruling as “a complete and decisive victory” and said the court rejected what it called the Township’s illegal efforts to rescind the Downtown Waterfront Redevelopment Plan while reaffirming Meridia’s legal rights as owner of the redevelopment area.
“The ruling represents a total loss for the Township,” the company said in its press release.
“The court’s decision confirms that the Township’s actions were legally unsupportable and that taxpayer money was wasted pursuing an ill-conceived political agenda instead of serving the public interest,” said Steven Mlenak, lead attorney for Meridia.
Rodrick disagreed with the court’s interpretation and said the Township will seek reconsideration. He argued that the property reverted back to municipal control when Meridia defaulted under its redevelopment agreement.
Conflicts Of Interest
The court also found that the participation of then-Councilman Justin Lamb and then-Assistant Municipal Attorney Peter Pascarella created conflicts of interest under the Local Government Ethics Law.
Judge Gertner concluded that Pascarella’s dual role in Planning Board proceedings and later advising the governing body created at least the appearance of impropriety. The court also determined that Lamb’s property connections within the redevelopment area required disqualification.
Meridia’s press release emphasized that the court found two Toms River officials violated the Local Government Ethics Law.
Rodrick rejected that characterization. “Justin voted to repeal a plan that increased the value of his father’s property,” Rodrick said. “He didn’t vote to improve his own position. He voted the way he believed taxpayers wanted him to vote.”
The mayor also noted that Pascarella no longer serves in the Planning Board role cited in the opinion.
Notice Requirements
Judge Gertner further ruled that the Township failed to provide proper notice to Meridia when repealing the redevelopment plan. Publication in a newspaper was not sufficient. The court found that personal service or certified mail was required under the Municipal Land Use Law and was not provided to property owners within 200 feet in all directions.
Because notice requirements were not met, the Planning Board lacked jurisdiction according to the legal opinion.
Meridia stated in its release that the court found the Township’s campaign to repeal the plan was baseless, politically motivated, and a costly misuse of public funds. The developer called upon the Township Council to “step in, exercise independent judgment, and put an end to this costly and counterproductive approach.”
“It is time for the Council to recognize that Mayor Daniel Rodrick’s actions do not reflect the best interests of the Township or its taxpayers,” said Dennis Liloia, General Counsel for Meridia. “Continuing down this path only guarantees more wasted public money.”
Rodrick rejected that characterization and said the Township intends to act quickly in response to the ruling. “The township will immediately begin the process of repealing the plan again, and we will follow the judge’s recommendations during the repeal,” Rodrick said. He indicated the Township will seek reconsideration of the decision while simultaneously moving forward with a new repeal effort that addresses the procedural concerns outlined in the opinion.
Planning Board Analysis
The court also criticized the Planning Board’s recommendation, finding that it relied heavily on testimony about potential ratable increases without reconciling inconsistencies with the Township’s Master Plan.
Judge Gertner concluded the ordinance was “arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.” The court cited the lack of testimony and supporting documentation that the ordinance would meet specific goals of the Master Plan.
Mayor: High-Rises Still Off The Table
Rodrick stressed that the ruling does not open the door to high-rise development. “I want to reassure residents that nothing can be built using the zoning in that plan without an agreement with the Mayor and I will not allow high-rises downtown,” he said.
Rodrick said redevelopment plans require redevelopment agreements with the administration and that underlying zoning remains capped at four stories. “It’s also important to note that this has no impact on my cancellation of the Mo Hill administration’s Tower Project,” Rodrick added.
The ruling does not resolve a separate lawsuit still pending in Ocean County Superior Court.
In that case, Meridia is suing Toms River Township and Rodrick over the downtown waterfront redevelopment project. The developer alleges the Township violated its redevelopment agreement after Rodrick took office in January 2024 by delaying permits, failing to provide required information, improperly declaring the company in default, and moving to terminate the agreement.
Meridia argues those actions breached the contract and interfered with its rights, including the project’s affordable housing component. The company is asking the court to declare it not in default, order the Township to honor the agreement, and award damages.
In response, the Township and Rodrick deny the allegations and argue that Meridia failed to meet deadlines required under the agreement. The Township acknowledges issuing a termination notice in July 2024 and is seeking dismissal of the complaint.
That case remains in discovery. Rodrick estimated it could take several years before a ruling.
For now, the Downtown Waterfront Redevelopment Plan remains in place. The broader legal dispute over the future of downtown Toms River continues.
