01-2-4298 Kopecky v. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Petitioner appealed from respondent’s final decision, following a hearing, denying him a grant under the Low-to-Moderate Income Program to repair his home. LMIP offered grants to eligible homeowners under the Superstorm Sandy Recovery Program. Respondent denied petitioner’s grant application for his failure to submit repair estimates from a LMIP-approved source, and his failure to link his home damage to Superstorm Sandy. On appeal, petitioner contended that he submitted adequate proof his home damage resulted from Superstorm Sandy, and alternatively argued that even if his estimates were inadequate proof, the subsequent condemnation of his home was proof of damage totaling at least $8,000. The court affirmed respondent’s decision, noting that petitioner did not allege that he had at least a foot of water in his home. The court further found that none of the repair estimates submitted by petitioner supported their calculations by documentation from sources required by LMIP, nor did any of the estimates tie petitioner’s home damage to Superstorm Sandy. The court further noted that petitioner failed to link the condemnation of his home to Superstorm Sandy. The court held that such a link was necessary, as petitioner had failed to repair damage cause by the earlier Hurricane Irene.
01-2-4299 In the Matter of Landis Sewerage Authority NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025364-46537, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (11 pp.) Appellant appealed from a denial of its request for administrative hearings concerning fees assessed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The fees related to the 2014 and 2015 assessments imposed under the New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System for appellants’ operation of its wastewater treatment plant. The DEP concluded it had correctly applied the rules and fee reports in determining appellant’s permit fees in 2014 and 2015. As appellant was essentially challenging duly promulgated regulations and not DEP’s application of the regulations, it denied the request for hearing to recalculate the assessed fees. On appeal, appellant argued that DEP misapplied the governing regulations and failed to provide specific answers to questions. The court affirmed holding the fees assessed were adopted as rules and appellant failed to properly appeal those rules. Further, the objections appellant raised did not present material facts requiring adjudication at an administrative hearing. The court noted that a proceeding involving the amount of permit fees was not adjudicative or quasi-judicial; rather, it was legislative in nature and thus, an adjudicative hearing need not be held. Finally, the court held that appellant had 45 days after the publication of the annual fee report to challenge the adoption of the fee and the data used to calculate that fee. As appellant took advantage of all available opportunities and exhausted all of its remedies within the administrative process, the court affirmed denial of an administrative hearing.
