The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5178-17T3
JOHN GENTLESS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MAYOR AND BOROUGH
COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH
OF STRATFORD,
Defendants-Respondents.
_____________________________
Argued June 5, 2019 – Decided June 21, 2019
Before Judges Reisner and Mawla.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-3344-17.
John Gentless, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Stuart A. Platt argued the cause for respondent (Platt &
Riso, PC, attorneys; Stuart A. Platt, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In order to comply with the Borough of Stratford's court-approved fair
share affordable housing plan, the Borough Council adopted Ordinance 2017-
11 (the ordinance), adding a housing component to the
rehabilitation/redevelopment plan for a dilapidated shopping center. Before
adopting the ordinance, the Council received a resolution from the Borough's
Joint Land Use Board (the Board), recommending adoption of the proposed
ordinance as being consistent with the Borough's master plan. In his amended
complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, plaintiff John Gentless 1 challenged the
ordinance as not being substantially consistent with the master plan, N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-7(d), asserted that the public notice of its proposed adoption was
inadequate under N.J.S.A. 40:49-2(a), and contended that one of the Board
members had a conflict of interest because he allegedly lived within two hundred
feet of the shopping center.
In a comprehensive written opinion, Assignment Judge Deborah
Silverman Katz addressed and rejected each of plaintiff's arguments. Among
other things, she noted that plaintiff produced no legally competent evidence
that the allegedly-conflicted Board member owned or had an interest in property
near the shopping center. The judge also found that the Board's
1
Plaintiff was formerly the Borough's Mayor.
A-5178-17T3
2
recommendation, concerning consistency with the master plan, was based on
expert planning testimony that the Board credited, and the Council's public
notice provided sufficient information to satisfy N.J.S.A. 40:49-2(a).
On this appeal from Judge Silverman Katz's June 5, 2018 order dismissing
his complaint, plaintiff raises the same arguments he presented in the trial court.
We affirm for the reasons stated in the judge's comprehensive written opinion.
Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-5178-17T3
3