Law Office of Christopher D. Hopkins
Law Office of Christopher D. Hopkins
Law Office of Christopher D. Hopkins
HomeReal Estate LawLand Use LawEnvironmental LawLaw Articles and NewsLaw ResourcesContact Christopher Hopkins
  • Tue January 21, 2014, 3:51 pm
    Site Remediation Extension of Time Bill Gives 2 Additional Years for Completion of Remedial Investigation of Contaminated Sites Two Year of Extension of May 7, 2014 Deadline For Completion of Remedial Investigation of Contaminated Sites For thos...
    [read more]
  • Mon November 4, 2013, 7:14 pm
    Compensation For Loss of Ocean Views Due to Protective Dunes Upheld Compensation For Loss of Ocean Views Due to Protective Dunes Upheld, Although Protective Benefit of Dunes Must Be Includ...
    [read more]
  • Sun September 29, 2013, 4:12 pm
    NJ Supreme Court Rejects COAH’s Third Round Regulations New Jersey Supreme Court Rejects COAH’s Third Round Regulations On Thursday, the New Jersey Supreme Court, by a 3...
    [read more]
  • Thu May 23, 2013, 10:28 am
    De Facto Merger of LP Into LLC Does Not Preclude Transfer of Prior Entity’s Rights May 23 2013 -In I/M/O Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund Innocent Party Grant Application Cliflake Associates LLC...
    [read more]
  • Tue April 30, 2013, 8:02 pm
    NJ State's Energy Master Plan For Solar Incentives for Dumps and Brownfields - Slow Going According to an article on NJ Spotlight - The state’s Energy Master Plan wants to convert garbage dumps and brownf...
    [read more]
  • Mon March 25, 2013, 7:14 pm
    Hydraulic Fracturing Update New York Home Rule Power To Curb Fracking Upheld In Lenape v. Town of Avon et al., case number 1060-2012, in New York...
    [read more]
  • Sun March 24, 2013, 11:39 am
    Creation of Hydraulic Fracturing Performance Standards Shell, Chevron, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Clean Air Task Force, Consol Energy, the EQT Corporation, the Group ...
    [read more]
  • Tue March 5, 2013, 7:42 pm
    Zoning Protections Lost For Hurricane Sandy Damaged Structures Deemed “Totally” Destroyed The Appellate Division yesterday made it more difficult for property owners trying to rebuild after Hurricane Sandy. The...
    [read more]
  • Fri March 1, 2013, 2:17 pm
    NJ Court Holds That Age Restricted Development May Be Marketed With No Age Restriction March 1 2013 - The Court, in Sharbell Building Company, LLC v. Planning Board of The Township of Robbinsville, held that...
    [read more]
  • Tue February 5, 2013, 8:15 pm
    NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Requisite Nexus For Liability Under the Spill Act February 5 2013 - In NJ Department. of Environmental Protection v. Dimant, 212 N.J. 153 (2012), the New Jersey Supreme C...
    [read more]

View Archives

New Jersey Lawyers
RSS feed of The Law Office of Christopher D. Hopkins Twitter feed of The Law Office of Christopher D. Hopkins Facebook The Law Office of Christopher D. Hopkins
From the Aricle Archive
Compensation For Loss of Ocean Views Due to Protective Dunes Upheld

 Compensation For Loss of Ocean Views Due to Protective Dunes Upheld, Although Protective Benefit of Dunes Must Be Included In Calculation

 
In Petrozzi v. Ocean City, the Appellate Division remanded claims by eight Ocean City property owners to determine how much they should be paid because they lost ocean views when the City built protective dunes in from of their beach front property. Petrozzi was not a takings case, but the Court found the plaintiffs could recover anyway because they relied on the city's promise to limit the dunes' height. Between 1992 and 1995, plaintiffs granted perpetual easements so the Army Corps of Engineers could construct the dune system. In return, the city agreed the dunes would not rise more than three feet above the average elevation of the bulkhead, generally 12 feet. By 2002, the dunes had naturally grown as much as six feet above that, while intervening changes in the law meant that the Department of Environmental Protection had to grant permission before the height of a dune could be altered. The DEP denied a permit to reduce the dune height and the denial was upheld on appeal in 2008.
 
The appeals court held Ocean City liable stating that even though the change in the law and DEP's denial of the permit were outside Ocean City's control and not reasonably foreseeable and thus, there was no breach of the agreement, the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation because they relied on the city's promise. "If Ocean City may retain the benefit of this bargain despite its failure to perform its promise...without consequence, the municipality would reap a windfall at plaintiffs' expense" the Court held.
 
However, on remand any determination of compensation must also include a valuation of the protective benefit of the dune, which could possibly outweigh any impact on the view. This follows the case of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, which was decided four months ago and held that compensation paid to landowners for view-obstructing dunes must reflect the benefit of the protection the dunes provide. Accordingly, it will be interesting to see how the court values the protective benefit of the dunes, especially in light of the fact that the Plaintiffs homes suffered very little damage from Sandy and prior storms.
 
 
The Law Office of Christopher D. Hopkins, L.L.C.
1812 Front Street
Scotch Plains, New Jersey 07076
Tel. (908)-322-6121
Fax (908)-322-5701
www.chopkinslaw.com
 

 



Law Office of Christopher D. Hopkins
The Law Office of Christopher D. Hopkins, LLC 1812 Front Street, Scotch Plains, NJ 07076 || 908.322.6121