On September 21, 2012, New Jersey Governor Christie signed into
law an amendment to the Permit Extension Act of 2008 (the
PEA Amendment). The Permit Extension Act of 2008
(the Permit Extension Actor Act)
initially tolled the period of approval of certain development
approvals from January 2, 2007 through December 31, 2010. Effective
January 18, 2012, the Act was amended to extend the tolling period
through December 31, 2012. The PEA Amendment further extends the
tolling period through December 31, 2014 and also makes changes to
the scope of permits and approvals that are covered by the Act. The
following is a summary of the key changes to the Act:
EXTENSION PERIOD.The "Extension
Period" was extended by two years. The period of approval of
all approvals covered by the Act is now tolled until December 31,
2014. The Act continues to provide that the tolling period shall
not extend the life of any approval more than six months beyond the
conclusion of the tolling period (i.e., June 30, 2015).
PLANNING AREAS 4B AND 5.The Act
previously excluded all projects located in areas designated
pursuant to the State Development and Redevelopment Plan as
Planning Area 4B (Rural/Environmentally Sensitive) or Planning Area
5 (environmentally sensitive). The PEA Amendment grants retroactive
tolling for all approvals located within Planning Area 4B or
Planning Area 5, if the project is in a designated center or a
designated growth center in an endorsed plan.
CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SITES.Approvals
for projects within an area designated pursuant to the State
Development and Redevelopment Plan as a critical environmental site
were previously not entitled to tolling. The PEA Amendment grants
retroactive tolling to such approvals if they are located in the
"Extension Area", which includes Planning Area 1
(Metropolitan), Planning Area 2 (Suburban), Planning Area 3 (Fringe
Planning Area) and Planning Area 4A (Rural Planning Area) in the
State Plan, or a designated center, or a designated growth center
in an endorsed plan subject to certain time limitations set forth
in the PEA Amendment.
HIGHLANDS PLANNING AREA.Prior to the
PEA Amendment, the Act did not cover approvals within the Highlands
Region (both Preservation Area and Planning Area), except for areas
designated for growth in the Highlands Regional Master Plan.
Approvals in the Highlands Planning Area are now retroactively
tolled by the Act as long as the municipality in which the project
is located has not adopted, as of May 1, 2012, a Highlands master
plan element, a Highlands land use ordinance, or an environmental
resource inventory, unless the permit or approval is for a project
located within a Highlands center designated by the Highlands Water
Protection and Planning Council, in which case the approvals are
retroactively tolled regardless of whether the municipality in
which the project is located has adopted a Highlands master plan
element, a Highlands land use ordinance, or an environmental
LIMITATION ON TOLLING IN THE HIGHLANDS PLANNING
AREA.Note, the continued exclusion from tolling for
all projects located in Planning Area 4B and Planning Area 5 on the
State Plan (unless located in a designated center, or a designated
growth center in an endorsed plan), is a significant limitation on
the new retroactive tolling of approvals in the Highlands Planning
HIGHLANDS PRESERVATION AREA.The PEA
Amendment actually further limits the tolling of approvals within
the Preservation Area of the Highlands Region. The Act initially
covered approvals for projects in the Preservation Area that were
located in areas designated for growth in the Highlands Regional
Master Plan. The PEA Amendment includes a blanket exclusion from
tolling for all projects in the Preservation Area.
SEWERAGE CAPACITY AGREEMENTS.The PEA
Amendment clarifies that any agreement with a governmental
authority for the use or reservation of sewerage capacity is an
"Approval" that can benefit from the tolling period under
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a defendant architect’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the economic loss doctrine applies only to bar tort claims between parties to a contract.
Your Fair Housing Defense Blog Editor has written about the seven protected classes contained in our federal Fair Housing Act many times: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status and disability.