HOBOKEN, NJ — A New Jersey appellate court has denied the City of Hoboken's appeal of a 2017 decision in favor of developer Shipyard Associates, the latest salvo in a long-running series of lawsuits over waterfront real estate in the Mile Square City.

On Monday, a panel of state appellate judges upheld an Oct. 17, 2017 trial court ruling that granted a summary judgement in favor of Shipyard Associates. "This case is the most recent in a series of lawsuits over the proposed construction of two, 11-story high-rise residential buildings on the Hoboken waterfront," the judges wrote in their opinion.

The panel gave the following background on the legal battle: "Shipyard obtained land use approvals to build a large residential development on waterfront land, plus some indoor tennis courts to be constructed on a pier extending into the Hudson River. After completing most of the project, Shipyard proposed to construct two additional high-rises on the pier, instead of building the tennis courts. The city and the intervenors strenuously attempted to block that portion of the project, citing the importance of open space and recreation opportunities, the loss of their water views, and other concerns. They opposed Shipyard's application to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for a waterfront development permit, sued Shipyard for alleged violations of a developer's agreement, convinced the local planning board to refuse to hear Shipyard's site plan application for the two new high-rises, and convinced the county planning board to deny Shipyard's county-level land use application. Ultimately, those efforts failed." The appellate panel added:

"In the current litigation, Shipyard filed suit to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinances to block construction of its project. To be clear, the issue before the trial court (as on this appeal) was not whether the ordinances themselves were valid. The issue was whether the ordinances could be retroactively applied to this project, which had final land use approval." The trial court ruled that they could not, according to the appellate panel. "In a thorough opinion, the trial judge determined that, regardless of the way the city chose to characterize Ordinance Z-263, in substance it operated as a zoning ordinance. The judge reasoned that the Municipal Land Use Law prohibited a local government from applying newly-enacted zoning ordinances… to a project that had already received final site plan approval." The trial court judge also considered that the DEP, Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers had all reviewed the Shipyard project and none had concluded that the project was unsafe.

"We conclude that the trial judge reached the correct result, and little further discussion is required. In affirming, we add one caveat," the panel stated. "This case does not require us to decide whether or to what extent, under some circumstances, a zoning ordinance affecting health and safety might be applied to modify a previously-granted final approval. That is not what Hoboken proposes here. Rather, Hoboken seeks to retroactively apply ordinances that completely change the permitted uses in the zone. If applied here, the ordinances would require the revocation of a previously-granted final approval, a result contrary to the plain wording of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-52(a)."