A judge has invalidated a Toms River ordinance that repealed three key downtown redevelopment plans, ruling that conflicts of interest and procedural failures rendered the council’s action unlawful.
Superior Court Judge Sean Gertner struck down the Dec. 18, 2024 ordinance that repealed the Downtown Core Redevelopment Plan, the Robbins Parkway Redevelopment Plan and the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan. The lawsuit was filed by Meridia Toms River 40 Urban Renewal shortly after the Township Council approved the repeal in a 4-2 vote.
The repeal was part of Mayor Dan Rodrick’s broader effort to halt redevelopment initiatives in the downtown area, including a controversial apartment project proposed for the former Red Carpet Inn property at Irons and Water streets.
In his ruling, Gertner found in favor of Meridia on six counts, including allegations that former Assistant Township Attorney Peter Pascarella and former Councilman Justin Lamb had disqualifying conflicts of interest.
Pascarella, who at the time also served as a voting member of the Planning Board, was found to have a conflict when he both advised the township on the proposed repeal and voted on it as a board member. Gertner wrote that Pascarella had provided legal advice regarding whether the ordinance required a two-thirds council vote, an issue raised after affected property owners submitted a petition opposing the change.
Meridia argued that a supermajority vote was required. Pascarella advised that it was not. He also drafted default notices to Meridia during the township’s process of canceling the redevelopment agreement for the Red Carpet Inn site.
The judge concluded that Pascarella’s dual roles — as legal adviser and voting Planning Board member — created an impermissible conflict, particularly given his prior involvement in the township’s claims that Meridia had breached its redevelopment agreement.
Gertner also found that Lamb had a conflict because he leased office space from a property owned by his father within the downtown area affected by the ordinance.
“It is the mere existence of a conflict and not its actual effect that requires the official action to be invalidated,” Gertner wrote. “While there is no proof of fraud or improper motive … a perceived conflict of interest is as harmful to the public’s confidence … as the actual existence of such a conflict.”
He emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust, writing that “the appearance of impropriety standard is paramount to be upheld.”
In addition to the conflict-of-interest findings, Gertner ruled that the township failed to comply with New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law in adopting the repeal.
Township officials argued that because the ordinance reverted zoning to the prior Master Plan by eliminating the redevelopment plans, standard notice procedures were sufficient. The court disagreed, finding that the repeal “fundamentally clashed” with the Master Plan.
The township was required to provide written notice to affected property owners before adopting the change, Gertner ruled. The record showed it did not.
“Because the Council adopted a regulation that fundamentally clashed with the Master Plan, it was required to adhere to the protocols” of the statute, the judge wrote. “The undisputed record shows the Township Council failed to meet these statutory requirements; therefore the ordinance must be invalidated.”
The now-voided repeal ordinance was central to Mayor Rodrick’s effort to stop large-scale development in the downtown area. The most prominent project involved an apartment complex initially proposed as two 10-story towers and later revised to six stories.
Rodrick halted that project in 2024, stating that the developer had missed financing and other contractual deadlines. Meridia Toms River 40 and Capodaglia Property Group subsequently filed a separate lawsuit accusing the township, at the mayor’s direction, of delaying paperwork and other actions in a way that caused the project to miss those deadlines. That lawsuit remains pending.