Judge Rules On Belmar's Boardwalk Pavillion Lawsuits

Depending on who you talk to, it’s either a big win for the people of Belmar or a bump in the road toward building a pair of two-story pavilions on the town’s 1.3-mile boardwalk.

But a decision issued late Wednesday by Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson on lawsuits brought by a grassroots group of Belmar residents trying to halt the borough’s plans to build the structures may slow down the march toward construction.

In the 39-page decision, Lawson, sitting in Freehold, said arguments contained in the suits brought by a group calling itself "Let The Citizens Decide’’ have merit and called for the two sides to provide additional detail on the construction plans and how the borough will pay for the buildings.

The citizens group brought three separate suits against targeting various aspects of the redevelopment plan.

In one suit, the group sought to put the borough’s redevelopment plan on a referendum question before voters. In another, the group challenged the legality of using the borough’s Beach Utility Fund, bolstered by higher beach access fees, to pay for the pavilions. Another questioned whether the borough overstepped its authority in declaring the boardwalk an “area in need of redevelopment.’’

Lawson combined the suits and issued one decision covering all of them, a decision which Kenneth Pringle, the former Belmar mayor who is representing the citizens group, hailed as a victory.

“It’s a big win for the residents and taxpayers in Belmar,’’ Pringle said. “If these pavilions get built they will be there for generations to come. And if they are to be borne by taxpayers at a significant cost then they should know that before they get built and have an opportunity to have a say.’’

Mayor Matt Doherty said he had not discussed Lawson’s decision with the borough’s redevelopment attorney, William Northgrave, but said it does not appear to preclude the borough from proceeding with the redevelopment plan.

“We still plan on building and moving forward,’’ Doherty said.

Doherty pointed to a section of Lawson’s decision that upholds the borough’s authority to declare the boardwalk area an “area in need of redevelopment.’’

The citizens’ group argued that the borough could not declare the boardwalk an area in need of redevelopment because it was not taxable land. The boardwalk area is municipal property.

The court struck down that argument, saying the borough was within its legal right to make the designation.

However, while Lawson said the borough had the legal authority to make the designation, the court asked for more information from both sides on whether it was proper, considering the conditions of the boardwalk area when the designation was made in April.

The borough will have to prove that the area was a “blight,’’ at the time of the designation, according to the decision.

A conference on that point will be scheduled, the decision says. No date was immediately set.

The outcome of the other two cases hinges on whether the court accepts the borough’s argument that the boardwalk area was blighted at the time of the designation as an “area in need of redevelopment,” according to the decision.

Lawson, although he sided with the citizens’ group in both suits, put a hold on the effect of those decisions until settlement of the first lawsuit, according to the decision.

In the other two suits:

• Lawson said the borough clerk must take the necessary steps to certify a petition submitted by the citizens group challenging the redevelopment. And that a referendum should be set.
• Lawson would issue an order preventing the borough from using the Beach Utility Fund to bankroll the construction and maintenance of the pavilions because doing so violates the Public Trust doctrine, as the citizens’ group argued. The borough would have to find another way to pay for the pavilions.