Bill Text: NJ A3741 | 2016-2017 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Provides local government exclusive jurisdiction to decide appeal brought by public utility regarding denial of permit for excavation work and certain municipal zoning actions with provision for Superior Court review.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2016-05-19 - Introduced, Referred to Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee [A3741 Detail]
Download: New_Jersey-2016-A3741-Introduced.html
Sponsored by:
Assemblyman RONALD S. DANCER
District 12 (Burlington, Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean)
SYNOPSIS
Provides local government exclusive jurisdiction to decide appeal brought by public utility regarding denial of permit for excavation work and certain municipal zoning actions with provision for Superior Court review.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
An Act concerning certain excavation work permits and certain municipal zoning actions and amending P.L.1975, c.291 and P.L.1949, c.110 and supplementing Title 48 of the Revised Statutes.
Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:
1. (New section) a. The Board of Public Utilities shall not have jurisdiction to decide an appeal brought by a public utility, as defined in R.S.48:2-13, involving the denial of a permit by a county or municipal agency to perform excavation work on or within a county or municipal right-of-way.
b. Notwithstanding any other law, rule, regulation, or order to the contrary, a public utility, as defined in R.S.48:2-13, that has been denied a permit to perform excavation work on or within a county or municipal right-of-way may appeal that decision to the governing body of the county or municipality. The final decision of the governing body of a county or municipality concerning the issuance of a permit to perform excavation work on or within a county or municipal right-of-way may be reviewed in a proceeding in lieu of prerogative writ in the Superior Court. The Superior Court may issue a decision in a proceeding in lieu of prerogative writ on whether to issue a permit to the public utility to perform excavation work on or within a county or municipal right-of-way.
2. Section 10 of P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-19) is amended to read as follows:
10. Appeal or petition in certain cases to the [Board of Public Utilities] Superior Court.
If a public utility, as defined in R.S.48:2-13, or an electric power generator, as defined in section 3 of P.L.1999, c.23 (C.48:3-51), is aggrieved by the action of a municipal agency through [said] the agency's exercise of its powers under [this act] P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-1 et seq.), with respect to any action in which the public utility or electric power generator has an interest, an appeal to the [Board of Public Utilities of the State of New Jersey] Superior Court in lieu of prerogative writ may be taken within 35 days after [such] the action without appeal to the municipal governing body pursuant to section 8 of [this act] P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-17) unless [such] the public utility or electric power generator so chooses. [In such case] The appeal to the [Board of Public Utilities] Superior Court may be taken within 35 days after action by the governing body. A hearing on the appeal of a public utility to the [Board of Public Utilities] Superior Court shall be had on notice to the agency from which the appeal is taken and to all parties primarily concerned, all of whom shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard. If, after [such] the hearing, the [Board of Public Utilities] Superior Court shall find that the present or proposed use by the public utility or electric power generator of the land described in the petition is necessary for the service, convenience, or welfare of the public, including, but not limited to, in the case of an electric power generator, a finding by the [board] Superior Court that the present or proposed use of the land is necessary to maintain reliable electric or natural gas supply service for the general public and that no alternative site or sites are reasonably available to achieve an equivalent public benefit, the public utility or electric power generator may proceed in accordance with [such] the decision of the [Board of Public Utilities] Superior Court, any ordinance or regulation made under the authority of [this act] P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-1 et seq.) notwithstanding.
[This act] P.L.1975, c.291 (C.40:55D-1 et seq.), or any ordinance or regulation made under authority thereof, shall not apply to a development proposed by a public utility for installation in more than one municipality for the furnishing of service, if upon a petition of the public utility, the [Board of Public Utilities] Superior Court shall after hearing, of which any municipalities affected shall have notice, decide the proposed installation of the development in question is reasonably necessary for the service, convenience or welfare of the public.
[Nothing in this act shall be construed to restrict the right of any interested party to obtain a review of the action of the municipal agency or of the Board of Public Utilities by any court of competent jurisdiction according to law.]
(cf: P.L.1999, c.23, s.58)
3. Section 1 of P.L.1949, c.110 (C.48:9-25.4) is amended to read as follows:
1. Any gas company organized under the laws of this State in addition to, but not in limitation of, the powers conferred by the laws under which it was organized may construct, lay, maintain, and use facilities, conductors, mains and pipes, with the appurtenances thereto, in, through, and beyond any municipality [or municipalities], for the purpose of transmitting through the [same] municipality natural gas or any mixture of gas [or gases] of any other type [or types ] for use in its business; provided, that in each case [such corporation] the gas company shall first have obtained a designation by the governing body or official having control thereof, of the public street, road, highway, or place, which may be occupied by [such corporation] the gas company for [such purpose] the transmission of natural gas. If any governing body or official having control of any public street, road, highway, or place, after having received from [such corporation] the gas company a request to designate [such] a public street, road, highway, or place, for occupancy by [such corporation] the gas company for [such purpose] the transmission of natural gas, shall fail or refuse to make [such] the designation or to designate a practicable route, the [Board of Public Utility Commissioners] Superior Court, upon application by the [corporation] the gas company, and after hearing on notice to [such] the governing body or official, shall decide whether to make [such] the designation.
(cf: P.L.1962, c.198, s.103)
4. This act shall take effect immediately.
STATEMENT
This bill provides that a public utility that has been denied a permit to perform excavation work on or within a county or municipal right-of-way may appeal that decision to the governing body of the county or municipality. The final decision of the governing body of a county or municipality concerning the issuance of a permit to perform excavation work on or within a county or municipal right-of-way may be reviewed in a proceeding in lieu of prerogative writ in the Superior Court. The Superior Court may issue a decision in a proceeding in lieu of prerogative writ on whether to issue a permit to the public utility to perform excavation work on or within a county or municipal right-of-way.
The bill amends current law to provide that if a public utility or an electric power generator is aggrieved by the decision of a municipal agency with respect to zoning, the public utility or electric power generator may appeal the decision to the Superior Court. Further, the bill amends current law to provide that if a municipality fails to designate a route for a gas company to transmit natural gas thorough the municipality, the gas company may appeal the decision of the municipality to the Superior Court.
The sponsor's intent in introducing this legislation is to maintain consistency in the appeals of county and municipal land-use decisions and to reinforce the "home rule" doctrine.
