B.P.U.M. DEV. URB. RENEWAL v. CAMDEN, 11 N.J. Tax 95 (1989)

B.P.U.M. DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. CITY OF CAMDEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Tax Court of New Jersey.Submitted April 12, 1989.
Decided May 1, 1989.

Page 96

On appeal from the Tax Court.

Harvey C. Johnson, attorney for appellant B.P.U.M. Development and Urban Renewal Corporation (David E. Mapp, on the brief).

Patricia A. Darden, attorney for appellant City of Camden (Marcia R. Steinbock, on the brief).

Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Harry Haushalter, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Wiley, Malehorn and Sirota, attorneys for Town of Morristown amicus curiae (Robert Goldsmith and Robert G. Lavitt, on the brief; Robert Goldsmith, of counsel).

Before Judges GAULKIN and ARNOLD M. STEIN.

PER CURIAM.

Substantially for the reasons expressed in his opinion reported at 9 N.J. Tax. 490 (1988), we conclude that Judge Lario correctly held (1) that both the Urban Renewal Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55C-40 et seq.) and the Tax Abatement Law (N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.95 et seq.) require “the acceptance and execution of appropriate agreements as a precondition for an eligible project to receive tax abatement” and (2) that “there exists no equitable reason to waive the statutory prerequisites.” B.P.U.M. Dev. Urb. Renewal v. Camden, 9 N.J. Tax. at 502-503, 507.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Page 97