Lawsuits dismissed; outlet mall plans persist Mayor says developer still needs cooperation from state DOT, DEP BY ELAINE VAN DEVELDE Staff Writer TINTON FALLS — They did it right the first time, so no one has a right to complain. That was what state Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson had to say about several decisions borough officials made years and months ago in connection with making way for a controversy-laden outlet mall on Route 66 bordering Neptune. After the Asbury Park Press filed lawsuits against the “Mayor and Council of the borough of Tinton Falls, the Monmouth County Planning Board and CPG Tinton Falls LLC, a New Jersey-limited liability company (the borough’s planning consultant),” the borough filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. All have been dismissed by Lawson and the borough is poised and ready to move forward with the approvals and permits to construct the upscale 450,000-square-foot outdoor mall. “The good news is that two were dismissed with prejudice, which means that they cannot bring the complaints before the court again,” former Mayor Ann McNamara said. “We knew they had no merit. We abided by all zoning and planning regulations with respect to granting approvals for the mall and declaring the area in need of redevelopment. We knew that. It’s just nice to see the judge’s decision in writing.” One complaint alleged that the borough acted inappropriately in adopting an ordinance to declare the area where the 450,000-square-foot mall is to be built — by Chelsea Properties, Roseland — one in need of redevelopment. The Press’ complaint said the designation was “without merit” and should be set aside because “the actions of the Borough Council in adopting ordinances that improperly designate an otherwise beautiful farmland area with a well-developed and beautiful office complex abutting Carton Pond as an area in need of redevelopment was done as a giveaway of public tax dollars to improperly entice a large commercial developer to construct a commercial monstrosity on the doorstep of the Asbury Park Press and Neptune Township.” Lawson called the complaint one which hinged on biased private concerns not public benefit. “Clearly, the Asbury Park Press is concerned with the impact potential development may have on its own ‘private’ doorstep, not the public,” the judge’s decision said. It added that despite the Press’ contention that the area was designated a redevelopment area to benefit a “commercial monstrosity,” the ordinance adopted by Tinton Falls to put a redevelopment plan in place for the area made no mention of the mall. Lawson called the name calling “premature and misplaced.” In a second complaint, the Press alleged that the borough’s C-5 (commercial) zoning on the tract violated its civil rights because the statute of limitations on appealing zoning is two years. “However, plaintiff’s complaint admits that the subject area was zoned C-5 by ordinances passed by the Borough Council in February 2001,” Lawson said. “As such, even if the court were to accept plaintiff’s contention that it has pled a cause of action for a civil rights violation, the complaint is still clearly out of time, having been filed on Feb. 25, 2005.” The third complaint alleged that borough officials held “private meetings in July and September 2001 on the issue of granting tax abatements and incentives to the previous developer” of the outlet mall. The plaintiff demanded, via the Open Public Records Act, that the borough surrender records of those meetings. “The court, however, finds that this is not the proper forum for the adjudication of plaintiff’s records request,” Lawson said in his decision. That complaint was, therefore, dismissed, but without prejudice. Translation: The matter can be brought before the court again when the plaintiff obtains the records it is seeking and through the proper state channels. In the meantime, the Planning Board had reaffirmed its approvals of the project, confident that the complaints wouldn’t hold in court. Although the board paved the way for the development, there are still roadblocks, said Mayor Peter Maclearie. “The complaints were without merit for the most part,” he said. “But even though the lawsuits have been dropped, the developer still has to grapple with the state now. The developer got the local approvals subject to what the state did in connection with transportation and environmental conditions. So there are still issues that have to be funneled through the state DOT [Department of Transportation] and DEP [Department of Environmental Protection]. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? I have a feeling we haven’t seen it all on this yet. But we’ll deal with it if and when we have to.”