Appendix — Bell v. New Jersey

Supreme Court brief1988

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

g7 1601

Pee f

Supreme Court of the United, States —

IN THE

Supreme Court, U.S.

—— FILED

October Term, 1987 MAR 19 108

JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR.

CLERK

WESLEY K. BELL, individually and d/b/a

WES OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION, an agency of the State of New

Jersey, RUSSELL H. MULLEN, CLARENCE PELL,

VINCENT

MONTEFORTE,

STOLOWSKI and NICKOLAS

Defendants-Appellees.

On APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.

APPENDIX TO JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

WESLEY K. BELL

Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se

P.O. Box 538

188 Route #72

Manahawkin, New Jersey 08050

(609) 597-3222 or (609) 597-0800

Betavie Times Publishing Co oy es

Ratevie, VY (71 44-2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX.

Page

Order of the Supreme Court of the United States... la

Final Judgment February 19th, 1988 on Mortgage

Foreclosure on Lot 26A Block 145.............. 2a

- D.O.T. Notices to Remove—Parcels #L3E1 & 2 and

I eek ca Vek en oka $665 44004 5-68 5a

Complaint of the United States District Court ..... lla

Opinion Dated April 13th, 1987—New Jersey

Superior Court Appellate Division.............. 133a

Opinion Dated December 11th, 1987—New Jersey

Superior Court Appellate Division.............. 147a

i a sé eau 6 one eeeu sean 15la

EOE OI TE occ cc ccc ccc ccccvcccsesece 155a

ST ET Eg vc wecccecccecenccsnnesses 159a

Deed—Steward to Bell ............. eee e eens 163a

BO RI OD BE on cc ccc ccvccsnccceseccase 167a

I cc cere cc tcvdsesecessneuene 17la

EPO 6c ccc enceconsecvscaseeeesne 175a

I cc accccacscasnceecssesceent 177a

in <0:6.4-6 one bes. denen beccbee 183a

PE I BFE oc cn cance cccscenccnsacccs 185a

i vesa canes nace cena enn anaes 188a

PORTED EMD BIGOT occ ccc cece sccccsscccens 189a

Refusal of Applications 7/29/68 ..............005. 190a

eo UR | TT Tee ee 192a

Notice of Removal 10/21/68 ............... 00 ees 194a

Order to Remove Advertising Copy 10/28/68....... 196a

Pe EE MED ks Sc cccenccctsesscseces 198a

Se SN 5a 5-60-6566. 606556.06060000660485 200a

Order to Remove Advertising Copy 11/26/68....... 201la

Applications Returned 12/5/68..............0006. 202a

Notice of Intent to Condemn 12/5/68 ............. 204a

One of Group of Permit Denials 12/19/68.......... 205a

Page

Notice of Intent to Expand Area of Takings

Ss 6.h05 KA Kah nen anda daskdaanen eee 206a

DG ee 207a

Request Sor Mearine 1WMO/TB. .... occ cccccccccccces 209a

Ue PPE eee ree 210a

Letter from Sterns, Herbert & Weinroth Re:

a Tee eee 212a

a re ere 217a

Notice of Trespass and Removal 4/26/77 .......... 219a

Notice of Removal 1U/B/TT ... cece cc cccccecs 221la

Notion of Mienrtnet DIGITS «nonce ccccscccscncess 223a

Cambemt of Theanine MGBTS. ... occ sccccccscccans 225a

Refusal to Present Witnesses 3/9/78 .............. 227a

Permit Re-Application 10/11/79... ............045: 229a

Refusal to Accept Applications .................. 231la

Statement of Ownership 11/28/79 from Clinton Cronin,

eee eee Ee rr ne 234a

Notice to Remove Copy 1/8/80.................5. 236a

Refusal to Accept Applications 2/5/80 ............ 237a

Report Showing “Blank Sign’”’ 1/5/82 ............. 24la

ATES GE CORI 6 a5 5.0.5 64 euch cenacannataes 243a

Combined Communications Corp. v. City and

County of Denver, Opinion of District Court,

SR A SN rr ee 253a

Opinion of Supreme Court of Colorado, November 3,

RODE. «0.5 on 00nsucdccdccuaueneeeee eas ene 299a

Court Order, 45 Day Notice, May 29, 1969 ........ 313a

Order Dismissing D.O.T. and State No. 77-1531,

Judge Barlow, December 12, 1977.............. 316a

Oral Opinion No. 77-1531, Judge Barlow, March 6,

ee on rrr are 317a

Order of Dismissal No. 77-1531, Judge Barlow,

Diemeh BG. ROTR. on occ ntwnncuneneussttesescas 322a

Opinion of the Court, Third Circuit No. 78-1578,

Suan BE, WORD « «5c vii den0ecadinceassckaves 324a

enon ial MS

Page

Denial—U.S. Supreme Court No. 78-1554, October 1,

Oral Opinion—Judge Ackerman April 25th, 1980... 337a

Partial Dismissal No. 80-531, Judge Ackerman,

6s a aes a6 bbe huss S06 ore 6 we 352a

Oral Opinion—Judge Thompson July 12th, 1982 ... 355a

Order, Lack of Jurisdiction No. 80-2109, July 29,

cule ab blew eNee eae ee ves 365a

Order No. 80-531, Judge Thompson, December 21,

ee ee ae ee oe oe DaenwA te ea 366a

Opinion No. 80-531, Judge Thompson, December 21,

Ne oes da W bits BAe a 4d Kees © ae ee wie 368a

Order for Abandonment—Judge Thompson Parcel

L-2R31D Dated July 20th, 1983 ............... 378a

Order No. 80-531, Judge Thompson, September 28,

te gd wk ow wea 6 ab bees 380a

Opinion No. 80-531, Judge Thompson, September

a he eC pec dence sist ec'ss 382a

State Police Report, September 30, 1983 .......... 40la

Order Denying Stay No. 80-531, October 6,

EE ae ee eee 403a

Order No. 83-5760, Third Circuit, June 15, 1984.... 40°»

Rehearing Denied No. 83-5760, July 24, 1984...... 4U08a

Opinion—Judge Thompson January 20th, 1987..... 409a

Order—Judge Thompson January 27th, 1987 ...... 422a

Order of Dismissal—U.S. Court of Appeals Third

ce re 423a

Notice of Appeal November 3, 1987 .............. 425a

Notice of Appeal November 10, 1987 ............. 427a

Order for Extension January 7, 1987 USS.

Se ara dw seeds vaccecsecseees 429a

Stafford Township Police Report, October 31,

eS a. yay obs 4.6.6 95.0.5 # a 6.8 0 des 43la

News Article with Photo, November 1, 1984....... 433a

iv.

Page

Photos of Destruction, September 30, 1983........ 435a

Map of Southern Ocean County.................. 439a

Letter, Re-Location Funds, November 4, 1970 ..... 440a

Letter Advising of Elimination, Parcel No. L-22B,

BU SUE ees cc easas at bcenerierecn wees 44la

Letter Advising Parcel No. L-22B Has _ Been

Deleted, Fatwuary 9, 1076... 05 ccc csc wecesss 442a

Letter Advising Order for Abandonment, Parcel

Rae Sf ne. ae 444a

Loss of Advertising, Parcel #4L2R-31D............ 446a

Pe Re Rl das ccacneteaie ceca haere 449a

Relevant Portions of the United States

ER tS Ry a rg eg a ee Py 480a

Certificate of Possession—Removal............... 483a

National Adv. Co. v. The City of Orange, Fed. Dist.

ees Re OE 0 ee sas oc he Wale asaees 485a

National Adv. Co. v. The City of Orange, 8-15-1986

Fed. Dist. Court Findings of Fact and Conclusions

OF Gs cio 6-645: 00-440-464 REs ea CCN 490a

National Adv. Co. v. The City of Orange, 9th Cir.

ee BT SPPPITeTeTeeTeTI Cee reer ee 496a

National Adv. Co. v. The City of Orange, Fed. Dist.

Court Order Amended 3-27-87................. 498a

National Adv. Co. v. The City of Orange, 9th Cir.

Pretrial] Steg Order 43ST oo cc cca dtc ends 501la

Order of the Supreme Court

of the United States

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 78-1554

WESLEY K. BELL,

Petitioner,

vs.

NEW JERSEY, et ai.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 78-1578.

On Consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari

herein to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit.

It is Ordered by this Court that the said petition be,

and the same is hereby, denied.

June 4, i979

A true copy MICHAEL RODAK, JR.

Test:

Clerk of the Supreme Court

of the United States

By Lawrence P. RILL

Deputy

Final Judgment February 19th, 1988 on Mortgage

Foreclosure on Lot 26A Block 145

Filed

Henry H. Wiley

Judge

Superior Court

Feb 19 1988

BERRY, KAGAN, PRIVETERA

& SAHRADNIK

23rd Street and Long Beach Boulevard,

Spray Beach, NJ 08008

Mailing: BOX 249, Beach Haven, NJ 08008

609-492-4656

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Chancery Division—Ocean County

Docket: F 4675-85

FIRST JERSEY NATIONAL BANK/South, formerly

known as The Bank of New Jersey, N.A., a banking

corporation of the United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WESLEY K. BELL and ANN M. BELL,

his wife, et als.,

Defendants.

Civil Action

Final Judgment February 19th, 1988 on Mortgage

Foreclosure on Lot 26A Block 145.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court and

having been tried upon the merits, the Court having

considered the testimony of various witnesses and the

exhibits presented and for good cause showing and IT

APPEARING that summons and complaint have been

duly issued and returned served on all of the defendants

except the State of New Jersey for whom notice and

complaint has been duly acknowledged by the Attorney

General; that default has been taken against all the

defendants except Wesley K. Bell and Ann M. Bell, his

wife, who have filed an Answer which does not dispute

the priority of plaintiff's mortgage; and the plaintiff's

Note and Mortgage having been presented and marked

as Exhibits by the Court; and the various Exhibits of the

defendants, Wesley K. Bell and Ann M. Bell, his wife,

having been presented and marked as Exhibits by the

Court;

AND IT APPEARING from the proofs and affidavits

filed herein that there is due to the plaintiff the sum of

$109,550.75 on its Mortgage described in the Complaint;

IT IS, on this 19th day of Feb., 1988 ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED that the plaintiff is entitled to have the

sum of $109,550.75 with lawful interest thereon from

Feb. 1, 1988, together with costs of this suit to be taxed,

with a counsel fee of $1,345.50 raised and paid out of the

mortgaged premises described in the Complaint;

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED that the counterclaims of defendants,

Wesley K. Bell and Ann M. Bell, his wife, are hereby

dismissed with prejudice.

eee

Final Judgment February 19th, 1988 on Mortgage

Foreclosure on Lot 26A Block 145.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED that so much of the said mortgaged

premises as will be sufficient to raise and satisfy the said

mortgage, interest and costs of the plaintiff be sold and

that an execution do issue for that purpose out of this

court directed to the Sheriff of Ocean County

COMMANDING Him to make sale according to law of

so much of the mortgaged premises as will be sufficient

te &**isfy the said mortgage, interest and costs of the

piaint?*f and that he pay out of the proceeds of sale to

ir~ plaintiff or its attorneys, its debt, interest and costs

and that in case there is a surplus, the same shall be

brought into this Court; and that the said Sheriff make

his report to this Court of the sale as required by the

rules of the Court.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED that the plaintiff duly recover against the

said defendants, Wesley K. Bell and Ann M. Bell, his

wife, or anyone hoiding under them, possession of the

premises mentioned and described in the said Complaint

with the appurtenances and that a Writ of Possession

issue thereon.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED that all of the defendants to this action

and each of them stand absolutely debarred and

foreclosed of and from all equity of redemption of, in and

to so much of the said mortgaged premises as shal! be

sold as aforesaid under this Judgment.

HENRY H. WILEY, J.S.C.

neem

D.O.T. Notices to Remove— Parcels

#L3E1 & 2 and TLE-1G & 1H

(Seal) In Reply Please Refer To

Sign Encroachment

Removal Program

John C. Kohl Route 72 C-34

Commissioner Project No. CAF-000B-(2)

Date 3-16-74

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Department of Transportation

1035 Parkway Avenue

Trenton, New Jersey 08625

RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION

Box 272, R.D. 4, Route U. 5. 9

Freehold, New Jersey 07723

To: Wes Adv Co

Manahawkin NJ

Dear

As you probably recognize, signs and other obstructions

which encroach on State Highway property tend to

become traffic hazards and also to detract from the

highway appearance. Legally, they also consist of a

trespass.

It has been noted that a sign apparently erected by you,

or on your behalf as follows, appears to be on State

property without a permit and therefore is illegal.

s/s Rte 72 at Pole #P 365-43 Long Beach Island

(Sign Description and Location)

sign = (just painted-no adv.)

This is to notify you that your cooperation is requested

in voluntarily removing this sign from State property.

D.O.T. Notices to Remove—Parcels

#L3E1 & 2and TLE-1G & H.

If it is not voluntarily removed within 14 days of the

sending date of this letter, the sign will be removed by

the State and stored for 30 days thereafter. Charges

incurred by the State for such removal and storage will

be considered your liability and may be billed to you.

Further, this is to alert you that under the State's

statutes the State may proceed either in the Superior

Court for each day’s violation to recover a fine not

exceeding $100.00, and the costs of prosecution, or may

prosecute the matter as a public nuisance in the local

municipal Court wherein you would be subject to a

penalty of $25.00 plus court costs upon conviction.

Your prompt assistance and cooperation in the overall

public interest through removal of this sign by the 14-

day expiration date will therefore be appreciated. If you

have any questions, please call Robert Delaney,

telephone 431-4500.

Existing R/W 130’ from Island (U-Turn)

Sign is in proposed R/W—Landscape = 1000’ set

Very truly yours,

J. WENZEK

DISTRIBUTION: Original to Owner;

Duplicate retained by patrol;

Triplicate to District Office:

Quadruplicate to Headquarters Office.

D.O.T. Notices to Remove—Parcels

#L3E1 & 2and TLE-1G & H.

(Seal) In Reply Please Refer To

Sign Encroachment

Removal Program

John C. Kohl Route 72 C-35

Commissioner Project No. CAF-000B-(2)

Date 3-16-74

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Department of Transportation

1035 Parkway Avenue

Trenton, New Jersey 08625

To: Wes Outdoor Adv Co

Manahawkin NJ

Dear

As you probably recognize, signs and other obstructions

which encroach on State Highway property tend to

become traffic hazards and also to detract from the

highway appearance. Legally, they also consist of a

trespass.

It has been noted that a sign apparently erected by you,

or on your behalf as follows, appears to be on State

property without a permit and therefore is illegal.

s/s Rte 72 at Pole #P 365-45 = Long Beach Island

(Sign Description and Location)

sign = Ship Bottom & Hands Dept. Stores etc

This is to notify you that your cooperation is requested

in voluntarily removing this sign from State property.

If it is not voluntarily removed within 14 days of the

sending date of this letter, the sign will be removed by

the State and stored for 30 days thereafter. Charges

D.O.T. Notices to Remove—Parcels

#L3E1 & 2and TLE-1G & H.

incurred by the State for such removal and storage will

be considered your liability and may be billed to you.

Further, this is to alert you that under the State's

statutes the State may proceed either in the Superior

Court for each day’s violation to recover a fine not

exceeding $100.00, and the costs of prosecution, or may

prosecute the matter as a public nuisance in the local

municipal Court wherein you would be subject to a

penalty of $25.00 plus court costs upon conviction.

Your prompt assistance and cooperation in the overall

public interest through removal of this sign by the 14-

day expiration date will therefore be appreciated. If you

have any questions, please call Robert Delaney,

telephone 431-4500.

Sign is in proposed R/W line—1000' set.

Very truly yours,

J. WENZEK

DISTRIBUTION: Original to Owner;

Duplicate retained by patrol;

Triplicate to District Office:

Quadruplicate to Headquarters Office.

aS bmw

D.O.T. Notices to Remove—Parcels

#L3E1 & 2and TLE-1IG & H.

(Seal) In Reply Please Refer To

Sign Encroachment

Removal Program

John C. Kohl Route 72 C-36

Commissioner Project No. CAF-000B-(2)

Date 3-16-74

To: Wes Outdoor Adv Co

Manahawkin NJ

Dear

As you probably recognize, signs and other obstructions

which encroach on State Highway property tend to

become traffic hazards and also to detract from the

highway appearance. Legally, they also consist of a

trespass.

It has been noted that a sign apparently erected by you,

or on your behalf as follows, appears to be on State

property without a permit and therefore is illegal.

s/s Rte 72 at Pole #36546

(Sign Description and Location)

sign = Hartovan’s Amusement Park

This is to notify you that your cooperation is requested

.in voluntarily removing this sign from State property.

If it is not voluntarily removed within 14 days of the

sending date of this letter, the sign will be removed by

the State and stored for 30 days thereafter. Charges

incurred by the State for such removal and storage will

be considered your liability and may be billed to you.

Further, this is to alert you that under the State’s

statutes the State may proceed either in the Superior

;

10a

D.O.T. Notices to Remove—Parcels

#L3E1 & 2and TLE-1G & H.

Court for each day’s violation to recover a fine not

exceeding $100.00, and the costs of prosecution, or may

prosecute the matter as a public nuisance in the local

municipal Court wherein you would be subject to a

penalty of $25.00 plus court costs upon conviction.

Your prompt assistance and cooperation in the overall

public interést through removal of this sign by the 14-

day expiration date will therefore be appreciated. If you

have any questions, please call Robert Delaney,

telephone 431-4500.

Sign is in Proposed R/W—1000" set.

Very truly yours,

J. WENZEK

DISTRIBUTION: Original to Owner;

Duplicate retained by patrol;

Triplicate to District Office:

Quadruplicate to Headquarters Office.

lla

Complaint of the United States District Court

Original Filed

Apr 10 1986

Allyn Z. Lite, Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the District of New Jersey

Civil Action

Complaint

WESLEY K. BELL, individually and T/A

WES OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , an agency

of the State of New Jersey, RUSSELL H. MULLEN,

CLARENCE PELL, VINCENT R. STOLOWSKI,

NICKOLAS F. MONTEFORTE, and JOSEPH

CUNNINGHAM,

Defendants.

Docket #86-1477 (AET)

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, WESLEY K. BELL, individually and doing

business as WES OUTDOOR ADVERTISING

COMPANY, brings this civil action, seeking preliminary

12a

Complaint of the United States District.

and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory judgment,

punitative and monetary damages, against the captioned

defendants and complains and alleges, as follows:

PLAINTIFF

1. Plaintiff, WESLEY K. BELL, is an individual

engaged in the Outdoor Advertising business, in the

State of New Jersey, since 1957, residing at 188 Route

#72, Manahawkin, New Jersey.

DEFENDANTS

9° Defendant, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, is a

sovereign State of the United States, with its capital and

“its principal place of business located, for the purpose of

service of process in the office of the Attorney General,

at the Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, New Jersey

08625.

3. Defendant NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION, has offices at 1035 Parkway

Avenue, Trenton, New Jersey and is an agency of the

State of New Jersey.

4. Defendant, RUSSELL H. MULLEN, is an

employee of the New Jersey Department of

Transportation and_ holds the title of Assistant

Commissioner.

5 Defendant, CLARENCE PELL, is an employee of

the New Jersey Department of Transportation.

6. Defendant, VINCENT R. STOLOWSKI, is a

former employee of the State of New Jersey and now

resides at 5 Sweet Briar Ln., Bordentown, New Jersey.

6. Defendant, NICKOLAS F. MONTEFORTE, is an

employee of the State of New Jersey, as an Assistant

Attorney General.

13a

Complaint of the United States District.

7. Defendant, JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM, is a former

employee of the N.J. Dept. of Transportation and resides

at 918 Schiller Ave., Trenton, New Jersey.

JURISDICTION

8. The acts of the Defendants, as set forth herein,

constitute violations of:

(a) CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, title VI

section 601. section 602.

(b) Title 42 of the United States Code, Sections

1983, 1985(3) and 1986, and of the due process and

equal protection provisions of the FIRST, FIFTH,

THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH, FIFTEENTH

Amendments and Article THREE, section two of

the Constitution of the United States.

(d) PUBLIC LAW 91-646

(e) PUBLIC LAW 93-643

(f) PUBLIC LAW 95-599

(g) Federal Laws and material relating to the

Federal Highway Administration (exhibit #1).

(h) In Rem-jurisdiction in eminent domain

proceedings under Rule 71A (see 7 Moore 71 d.10).

(i) Article 23 U.S.C. 131 to 134 amended 1978.

Article 28 U.S.C. 1257

Article 28 U.S.C. 1291

Article 28 U.S.C. 1331

Article 28 U.S.C. 1334

l4a

Complaint of the United States District.

(j) The amount in controversy exclusive of

interest and costs, exceeds ten thousand dollars

($10,000).

INTRODUCTION

9. Plaintiff is and has been, since April 1957, in the

Outdoor Advertising business, in Ocean County, New

Jersey. He has also run for public office and was elected,

in his municipality of Stafford Township in 1969, 1972,

1977, 1980 and 1982 and has served his community as

Mayor in 1972, 1973, 1975, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983.

10. The Department of Transportation, under

direction of defendants, under color of law, have

repeatedly violated Plaintiff's established rights in an

effort to put him out of business and to confiscate his

lands, which are not and were not needed for public

purposes and acted under the delegated power, under a

Federally funded program, in bad faith, wrongfully,

corruptly and intentionally and said acts are capricious

and injurious and beyond the privilege conferred by the

statutes and the Constitution of the United States.

Defendants and State employees were grossly negligent,

to a point of recklessness or deliberate indifference. The

purpose of the takings presents a "ederal Question,

Defendants acts against Plaintiff, present a Federal

Question.

Defendants entered into a conspiracy to wrongfully

condemn Plaintiff's lands and lands leased, where he

maintained existing billboards and as a result of that

conspiracy, defendants designated Plaintiff's sites as

‘scenic’.

15a

Complaint of the United States District.

Defendants made Federal Funds available for their

scenic condemnation of plaintiff's lands, for the sole

purpose of putting plaintiff out of business.

In 1968, when Defendants first commenced conspiracy

efforts against Plaintiff, his growing company

maintained 128 billboards. As a direct result of

Defendants acts, Plaintiff's company now has dwindled

to only 58 billboards.

The Defendants, under color of State law, continue to

act in a grossly negligent manner, to a point of

recklessness or deliberate indifference and in a

discriminatory manner, against Plaintiff and his business

interests, without regard to his protected rights.

11. On February 14th, 1986 (Valentine’s Day)

Defendant New Jersey Department of Transportation

employees entered onto Plaintiff’s lands on Route #72,

known as Lot 6, Block 33, in Barnegat Township. They

proceeded to cut down, with chain saws, Plaintiff’s

billboards located thereon, which were duly licensed

under State Permit #7098 (see exhibit #2).

Said illegal entry was without any right of legal access

and was done intentionally, corruptly, and wrongfully

and was done for the sole purpose of destroying

plaintiff's billboards. Supervisory officials were grossly

negligent, to the point of recklessness or deliberate

indifference, as a continuing effort to put plaintiff out of

business.

12. The New Jersey Department of Transportation,

through its employees, on February 14th, 1986, entered

onto Lot 1 Block 36 and Lot 10 Block 46, in Barnegat

Township, on three sites and cut down and destroyed

eleven creosoted utility-type poles and one complete

l6a

Complaint of the United States District.

framework for a large 10 ft. x 48 ft. billboard. These

billboards were erected in compliance with a perpetual

lease, recorded in Book 2514 and Page 311 of the County

of Ocean on August 26th, 1965, which is still in effect

(see exhibit #3).

The aforementioned billboards were in the process of

being removed by the Plaintiff, for use elsewhere,

because the State of New Jersey purchased these lands

with Federal Funding as a part of the National Pinelands

Reserve.

Defendants have not paid, Plaintiff, under Sections

122(a) and 122(b) of the Surface Transportation

Assistance Act of 1978, amended sections 131(g) and (k)

of Title 23, U.S.C. for the billboards and billboard

structures removed thereon.

Defendants acts and the supervisory officials under

their authority, were grossly negligent to a point of

recklessness or deliberate indifference and their acts were

done intentionally, corruptly, wrongfully and were done

for the sole purpose of destroying plaintiff's billboards.

13. Defendant New Jersey Department of

Transportation, through its employees, on September

30th, 1983, entered onto Lots 8 & 9, Block 120, in

Stafford Township and cut down and removed billboards

thereon, valued at $24,000.

Defendants, at the time of removal, had no right of

access on Plaintiff's lands and they did so, over his

objections and with the assistance of ‘armed, uniformed

State Police.’ (see Police Report, exhibit #4).

Defendants acts were grossly negligent to a point of

recklessness or deliberate indifference and were done as a

part of a conspiracy to put plaintiff out of business.

17a

Complaint of the United States District.

Defendants again entered onto these same premises, on

October 25th, 1984 and again attempted to remove

reconstruction Structures, after the previous removal (see

Stafford Township Police report Exhibit #5, see notice to

State, Exhibit #6, see news article of act, Exhibit #7).

Plaintiff has suffered loss of advertising revenue from

the illegal removal of these structures, at the following

rates:

Sept., 1983 to Sept. 1984 $10,400.

Sept. 1984 to Sept. 1985 $13,400.

Sept. 1985 to Sept. 1986 $14,800.

Sept. 1986 to Sept. 1987 $17,200.

In addition, plaintiff has suffered further legal expenses

when Stafford Township _ instituted legal action,

own the lands.

Defendant NICKOLAS MONTEFORTE intentionally,

wrongfully, corruptly and repeatedly mis-represented the

facts on this Parcel, to the U.S. District Court Judge

Anne Thompson, claiming that the Department of

18a

Complaint of the United States District.

Transportation was un-aware of Plaintiff's recorded

easement and other pertinent facts, concerning the

States’ denial of Plaintiff's permit applications (see

certification by Monteforte, exhibit #10; see false

affidavit of Donald Catts, exhibit #11; and D.O.T. letters

to owners, exhibits #12 and #13).

Plaintiff lost $88,300.0C in income, because of

Defendants acts (see loss breakdown, exhibit #14).

Plaintiff was the purchaser, in possession of Lot 31

Block 147, from Gustav & Margaret Foster, on 12/26/68

and said agreement of purchase was recorded on Page

; Book of the Ocean County Records (see

exhibit #15).

Because of Defendants attempted condemnatiow

proceedings, refusal to issue advertising permits for this

site and defendants penalty actions, Plaintiff was unable

to complete the purchase of the property, and suffered

extensive legal expenses. Sellers, on _______-:1971, filed

suit against Plaintiff to cancel the contract of purchase,

for failure to complete the transaction. As a result of the

Fosters suit, Plaintiff assigned his $12,000 contract of

purchase to Egon and Ede Kahl, Mike & Rita Ackaway

and Harry & Reinelda Baldasarre, in exchange for a

permanent easement on January 7th, 1972, Recorded

February 7th, 1972, in Book 3187, Page 1 (see exhibit #16).

Plaintiff estimates the aforementioned property is

presently valued at $300,000 and Plaintiff Wesley K. Bell

has suffered the real estate asset loss of this site, of over

$290,000 and extensive legal fees and expenses.

15. Defendants NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION, RUSSELL MULLEN and

NICKOLAS MONTEFORTE, on September 30th, 1983,

19a

Complaint of the United States District.

wrongfully, corruptly intentionally and under color of

law, caused Plaintiff's billboards to be cut down,

destroyed, removed without notice or Payment of

business. They are a total violation of Plaintiff's

protected rights, guaranteed him by the U.S.

appeal. see June 15th, 1984 Third Circuit Order, Docket

483-5760).

Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of

the United States and Defendants did not cross-appeal.

20a

Complaint of the United States District.

Plaintiff requested a re-hearing, which was denied on

April 15th, 1985.

17. The NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION had previously entered onto this

same group of lots, in 1967 and illegally removed

similarly constructed billboards, without any right of

access. The previous 1967 act had been declared illegal,

by Chancery Division Judge Edward V. Martino (see

Court Order, exhibit #17).

Plaintiff has continually opposed all of defendants acts

and has continually maintained legal proceedings,

challenging the Defendants condemnations and other

acts, in an effort to vindicate Plaintiff's rights as well as

to challenge Defendants illegal and improper actions.

18. Defendants, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW

JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

RUSSELL MULLEN AND JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM

and their supervisor officials and employees did

wrongfully, corruptly, intentionally and were grossly

negligent to the point of recklessness or deliberate

indifference and under color of law, caused Plaintiff's

lands to be condemned for the sole purpose of preventing

Plaintiff from making a living, in his billboard business.

Defendants did so, and caused Plaintiff's lands to be

designated as ‘scenic’, to make the takings eligible for

Federal Funds.

Defendants and their supervisory officials were clearly

aware that the entire area was ‘‘Not Scenic”’ and that the

area in question, was in fact zoned, used and developed

as business.

2la

Complaint of the United States District.

Defendants wrongfully, corruptly, intentionally and

under color of law, selected only this Plaintiff's interests,

and left adjacent and similar properties untouched for

condemnation. Defendants acts were grossly negligent to

a point of recklessness or deliberate indifference.

Plaintiff has continually opposed the States right to

‘select’ his interests and properties (see WES OUTDOOR

ADVERTISING CO. & WESLEY BELL v. DAVID

GOLDBERG, L-12980-68PW, 55 N.J. 34 (1970)). The

decision, in the last paragraph, says that Plaintiff may

challenge “any abuse by the Commissioner of

Transportation, through recourse through the courts”’.

Plaintiff has continually sought that recourse but it

has never been granted by a trial on the merits or any

other proceeding equivalent thereto.

Defendants selected the following parcels, owned by

Plaintiff, for wrongful condemnation and are not needed

for any public purpose:

Site A Lot 8 Block 68 Exhibits #18 & 19

Site B Lots 3,4,5,6,8,9 Block 120 Exhibits #20 & 21

Site C Lot 27D Block 144 Exhibit #22

Site D Lot 9, Block 145B Exhibit #23

Site E Lots 10 & 37 Block 145A Exhibits #24 & 25

Site F Lots 26A Block 145 Exhibits #26 & 27

Site G Lot 26A Block 145A Exhibit #28

Site H Lot 31 Block 147 Exhibit #29

Site J Lots 3 & 4, Block 298 Exhibits #30, 31,

32,&33

19. Defendant CLARENCE PELL, executed a False

Affidavit on or about 28th day of May, 1969 (See

exhibit #34), wrongfully, corruptly and intentionally for

the purpose of denying Plaintiff his pending

22a

Complaint of ithe United States District.

Constitutional right to challenge Defendants acts of

discrimination, in selecting Plaintiff's properties and not

those of adjacent property owners. Said acts were

grossly negligent to a point of recklessness or deliberate

indifference.

Said affidavit was falsified wrongfully, intentionally

and corruptly for the sole purpose of putting plaintiff out

of business and denying him his protected rights,

guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

20. Defendants, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION, RUSSELL H. MULLEN,

JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM AND CLARENCE PELL

caused the Department of Transportation maps to be

“altered” in 1974, on Lots 3 & 4, Block 298, in Stafford

Township, for the purpose of changing property lines, to

force Plaintiff to remove three (3) large billboards, owned

by the Plaintiff, without compensation, in violation of

the U.S. Constitution and Federal Law.

Defendants have obtained a fraudulent deed, based on

these illegal ‘alterations’, from the New Jersey

Department of Conservation and Economic

Development.

Plaintiff has continually opposed these acts for which

he has never had a ‘trial on the merits’.

21. On February 16, 1969, a conference was held by

the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, RUSSELL

H. MULLEN, JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM and one

Blauss (first name unknown), other employees of the

State Department of Transportation, with members of

the Stafford Township Government. During the course of

the meeting, both Mullen and Cunningham agreed that

Ne meee eee anni ale

23a

Complaint of the United States District

the proposed ‘right-of-way’ for beautification purposes

could and should be limited to 60 feet rather than 100 ft.

Nevertheless, they agreed to proceed with the

condemnation proceedings to a depth of 100 feet. Mr.

Mullen took the position that as soon as the problems

with Plaintiff had been resolved, the condemnation

proceeding would be amended to take only 60 feet rather

than 100 feet, as shown on the plans. However, those

statements were subsequently qualified by Cunningham

and Mullen in that they said that the uses to which the

property was to be put, the topography, etc., would be

reviewed by the Commissioner. The meeting made it

clear that property would have to be taken to greater

depths until Bell was eliminated and his property taken,

so that he could not erect signs. They would then take

lesser depths of remaining properties so as not to

prevent others from erecting signs close to the road.

Cunningham and Mullen also stated that the

Department of Transportation was not committed to a

100 foot right-of-way, and in some instances, might

agree to even less than 60 feet, if that was desirable,

depending upon the size of the property. The conspiracy

was intended to deprive Plaintiff of equal protection of

the laws and to prefer Plaintiff’s competitors and certain

favored property owners. The conspiracy entered into, on

that date, exists today (see Municipal records, copy of

minutes, exhibit #35).

22. VINCENT STOLOWSKI, of the Department of

Taxation, since 1968, has instituted proceedings against

the Plaintiff and has continued to harass the Plaintiff for

the purpose of denying his 5th Amendment rights to

liberty and the lawful enjoyment of his property

pursuant to the conspiracy among the defendants.

24a

Complaint of the United States District.

Stolowski falsely testified before the Ocean County

Court, that there were no billboards, other than

Plaintiff's, between Route #9 and Barnegat Bay. As a

result of these proceedings, the State of New Jersey

obtained a judgment against the Plaintiff, in excess of

$59,000. A criminal case against Stolowski was, however,

dismissed and the transcript of his original false

testimony was stolen from the Prosecutors records. A-

copy has now been obtained, from Micro-film records.

23. Defendant, STATE OF NEW JERSEY’s

judgment, obtained by false testimony of Defendant

VINCENT STOLOWSKI, referred to in count #21,

caused Plaintiff to sell off property known as Lot 2,

Block 114, in Barnegat Township, for a depressed figure,

to satisfy the judgment and pay legal expenses

associated therewith. z

24. As further evidence of his malicious intent,

VINCENT STOLOWSKI, in June of 1969, posted a

photograph of the Plaintiff, on the Bulletin Board in the

State House Annex Offices, with the caption, ‘‘Public

Enemy Number One” affixed to it. A copy of the

aforesaid picture is attached hereto, as Exhibit #36.

25. The STATE OF NEW JERSEY Department of

Outdoor Advertising, on March 28, 1969, by letter of

Vincent Stolowski, had ordered every sign and billboard

owned by the Plaintiff, within the State of New Jersey,

removed and advised that otherwise, they would be

removed by the State of New Jersey, after the 30 day

period. The State of New Jersey, again on February 5,

1976 ordered that all of the Plaintiff’s signs in the State

of New Jersey, be removed, or they would be summarily

removed by the State of New Jersey on April 1, 1976

25a

Complaint of the United States District.

unless the Plaintiff paid the State certain monies. These

actions were taken in violation of N.J.S.A. 54:40-70, in

that the State failed to apply to the Superior Court of

New Jersey for injunction relief against the alleged

violations as required by New Jersey Law. The State’s

actions thereby deprived Plaintiff of due process of law,

contrary to Plaintiff's rights under the New Jersey and

United States Constitution.

26. The State of New Jersey has also removed

Plaintiff's billboards located at (a) Sixth and Boulevard,

Ship Bottom, N.J.; and (b) on Lot 10 Block 158 and Lot

2, Block 147, in Manahawkin, N.J., all without due

process of law.

Subsequent to the removal of the Route #72 sign, on

Lot 10, Block 158, the State sought the cost of the

removal and in 1971, the Ocean County Court found that

the sign did not violate State Statutes.

Defendants acts were grossly negligent to a point of

recklessness or deliberate indifference and were a general

pattern of conduct by Defendants and their agents,

against Plaintiff.

27. Defendants wrongful, corrupt and intentional acts

have caused Plaintiff to expend over thirty four

thousand hours, since 1967, to the present date,

opposing the Defendants condemnations, preparing

defenses, meeting with attorneys, rebuilding destroyed

billboards, salvaging destroyed billboards, defending

other lawsuits which were caused as a spin-off of

Defendants illegal acts.

Plaintiff also spent attorney fees and engineering fees,

printing and court reporters fees, for those years,

exceeding $200,000, as a result of Defendants illegal and

wrongful acts.

26a

Complaint of the United States District.

28. Plaintiff requested assistance from Defendants,

for re-location funds as provided in Federal Programs

administered by the State in 1970.

As a result, Defendants agents responded on

November 4th, 1970, that such funds were not available

and that when they became available, Defendants would

contact the Plaintiff (see November 4th, 1970 letter,

exhibit #37).

Plaintiff is still waiting for Defendants response to

that request, even though it was raised, in the previous

appeal.

Defendants and supervisory officials for Defendants,

were grossly negligent, to a point of recklessness or

deliberate indifference, to violate Plaintiff's protected

rights.

29. Plaintiff regularly supports and _ provides

advertising space for affinity group causes, on these

billboards, with idealogical messages, such as “Hanoi,

Release Our POW/MIA’s” (see exhibits #23 & #28);

“Nobody Wants a Nuclear War, Vote Yes on Nuclear

Freeze’ (see exhibit #20); “Honor Our Flag—B.P.O.

Elks’; ‘‘Knights of Columbus-Keep Christ in

Christmas”; Plaintiff’s local elections for Mayor and also

County and State elections for the candidates of his

choice.

Plaintiff contends that other forms of mass media are

expensive for groups or persons of limited means. By

destroying Plaintiff's billboards, Defendants are also

destroying a direct means of reaching the public, for

numerous groups who could not afford to get their

message across, were it not for the ‘good will’ and

support they receive from the Plaintiff.

27a

Complaint of the United States District.

30. Plaintiff has sustained damages and requests

relief be awarded to his business, his property, other

consequential damages and persona! wealth, as follows:

(a) In excess of two million dollars, lost on

billboard revenues,

(b} Legal expenses in excess of $200,000,

of $200,000,

(d) Damages to Plaintiff's business, personal and

political reputation, in excess of one million dollars,

(e) Loss of real estate value of Lot 31, Block 147.

in amount of two hundred and ninety thousand

dollars ($290,000),

(f) Loss of time devoted to defending Plaintiff's

rights and properties from illegal acts and wrongful

condemnations, by Defendants, in the amount of

$3,000,000, as pro se legal fees (attorney fees),

(g) Loss of ability to re-invest Plaintiff’s income,

Over the past 18 years, said income being

wrongfully, corruptly and intentionally withheld by

Defendants acts, in excess of two hundred million

dollars,

(h) Loss of twelve thousand five hundred dollars

plus interest ($12,500+) collected by Defendants

from Plaintiff’s property closing (Cumberland Farms

for Shopping Center site in Barnegat) to satisfy

balance of wrongful judgment obtained through

Defendant VINCENT STOLOWSKI’S FALSE

TESTIMONY,

28a

Complaint of the United States District.

(i) Property ioss, in excess of two hundred

thousand dollars ($200,000) for depressed sale of

shopping center site, to Cumberland Farms, in

Barnegat, New Jersey, known as Lot 2, block 114.

Proceeds were used to satisfy wrongful judgment

and attorney fees obtained by Defendants,

(j) Setting aside and vacating all condemnations

of property interests of Plaintiff, condemned by the

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, along Route #72, in

Stafford Township, New Jersey,

(k) Declaring that Federal Funds expended to

condemn Plaintiff's properties were improperly

expended and required that they be refunded to the

United States Treasury,

(l) Enjoining the Defendants from harassment of

the Plaintiff and his business,

(m) Awarding a reasonable attorney’s fees and

costs and expenses related to the preparation

required to bring and sustain this action,

(n) Order payment of future loss of revenue,

which Plaintiff would receive in his lifetime, from all

removed billboards,

(o) Order payment of future loss of revenue,

which Plaintiff's wife and stepchildren would

receive, in their lifetime, from all removed billboards,

(p) and such other relief as may be appropriate.

WESLEY K. BELL, Pro Se

P.O. Box 538—188 Route #72

Manahawkin, New Jersey 08050

(609) 597-3222

29a

Complaint of the United States District.

EXHIBITS INDEX

EXHIBIT #

& Federal regulations on highways and

memorandum.

2. State permit, Route #72, Barnegat, N.J.

3. Dupar Lease

4. Police report (State) 8/30/83 (site B)

5. Police report (local) 10/25/84 (site B)

6. Notice to State (not to remove anything)

2 News article with photo (State Trooper)

(site B)

8. Court Order (site G) March 14,

1986—Judge Kearney

9. Map Exhibit (sites A through H)

10. Certification by Monteforte

11. Affidavit by Donald Catts

12. Letter to property owner (site H)

13. Letter to property owner (site H)

14, Loss breakdown on site H

15. Fosters agreement of purchase (site H)

16. Easement on site H

17. 1968 Court Order (Judge Martino) (site B)

18. Photos of site A before destruction

19. Photos of site A after destruction 9/30/83

20. Photos of site B before destruction

36.

37.

30a

Complaint of the United States District.

Photos of site B, after destruction 9/30/83

Photos of site C before and after

destruction 9/30/83

Photos of site D before destruction

Photos of site E after destruction 9/29/83

Photos of site E before destruction

Photos of site F before destruction

Photos of site F after destruction

Photos of site G before destruction

Photos of site H destruction prevented by

Judge Thompson

Photo of site J in present condition

Affidavit of Clarence Pell (all sites)

Municipal Minutes (conspiracy meeting —all

sites)

Public Enemy #1 Photo

Letter on re-location funds (all sites)

3la

Complaint of the United States District.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the District of New Jersey

Civil Action

WESLEY K. BELL, individually and

T/A WES OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO.,

Plaintiff,

V8.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION,

an agency of the State of New Jersey,

RUSSELL H. MULLEN,

CLARENCE PELL,

VINCENT R. STOLOWSKI,

NICKOLAS F. MONTEFORTE,

and JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM,

Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT

WESLEY K. BELL, being duly sworn according to

law, deposes and says that he is the Plaintiff, in this

matter and that the allegations contained in the

32a

Complaint of the United States District.

foregoing complaint are true and correct, to the best of

his knowledge, information and belief.

WESLEY K. BELL

Wesley K. Bell

Sworn and subscribed before me, this 10th day of

April, 1986.

GINA M. SIGNORELLI

Notary Public of New Jersey

My Commission Expires 10/5/86

ee ae

33a

EXHIBIT #1

Federal Laws and

Material Relating to

the Federal Highway

Administration

October 1983

(Logo)

U.S. Department

of Transportation Compiled by the

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration

Administration

*+_ + *

[11-65] signs shall conform to national standards to be

promulgated by the Secretary.'™

(g) Just compensation shall be paid upon the removal

of any outdoor advertising sign, display, or device

lawfully erected under State Law and not permitted

under subsection (c) of this section, whether or not

removed pursuant to or because of this section. The

Federal share of such compensation shall be 75 per

centum. Such compensation shall be paid for the

following:

(A) The taking from the owner of such sign,

display, or device of all right, title, leasehold, and

interest in such sign, display, or device; and

(B) The taking from the owner of the real

property on which the sign, display, or device is

‘= Amended by sec. 122(a) of Public Law 94-280, May 5, 1976 (90

Stat. 438).

——

34a

Exhibits.

located, of the right to erect and maintain such

signs, displays, and devices thereon.'’™

(h) All public lands or reservations of the United

States which are adjacent to any portion of the

Interstate System and the primary system shall be

controlled in accordance with the provisions of this

section and the national standards promulgated by the

Secretary.

(i) In order to provide information in the specific

interest of the traveling public, the State highway

departments are authorized to maintain maps and to

permit information directories and advertising pamphlets

to be made available at safety rest areas. Subject to the

approval of the Secretary, a State may also establish

information centers at safety rest areas and other travel

information systems within the rights-of-way for the

purpose of informing the public of places of interest

within the State and providing such other information as

a State may consider desirable. The Federal share of the

cost of establishing such an information center or travel

information system shall be that which is provided in

section 120 for a highway project on that Federal-aid

system to be served by such center or system. '™

(j) Any State highway department which has, under

this section as in effect on June 30, 1965, entered into an

agreement with the Secretary to control the erection and

maintenance of outdoor advertising signs, displays, and

13 Amended by sec. 109(c) of Public Law 93-643, Jan. 4, 1975 (88

Stat. 2284); and sec. 122(a) of Public Law 95-599, Nov. 6, 1978 (92

Stat. 2701).

13%e Amended by sec. 122(c) of Public Law 94-280, May 5, 1976 (90

Stat. 439).

35a

Exhibits.

devices in areas adjacent to the Interstate System shall

be entitled to receive the bonus payments as set forth in

the agreement, but no such State highway department

shall be entitled to such payments unless the State

maintains the control required under such agreement:

Provided, That permission by a State to erect and

maintain information displays which may be changed at

reasonable intervals by electronic process or remote

control and which provide public service information or

advertise activities conducted on the property on which

they are located shall not be considered a breach of such

agreement or |

* * *

[11-306] marketing of products, commodities,

personal property, or services by the erection and

maintenance of an outdoor advertising display or

displays, whether or not such display or displays are

located on the premises on which any of the above

activities are conducted.

(8) The term “farm operation’’ means any activity

conducted solely or primarily for the production of one or

more agricultural products or commodities, including

timber, for sale or home use, and customarily producing

such products or commodities in sufficient quantity to be

capable of contributing materially to the operator’s

support.

(9) The term ‘“mortage’’ means such classes of liens as

are commonly given to secure advances on, or the unpaid

purchase price of, real property, under the laws of the

State in which the real property is located, together with

the credit instruments, if any, secured thereby.

36a

Exhibits.

KEEFFECT UPON PROPERTY ACQUISITION

Sec. 102. (a) The provisions of section 301 of title III

of this Act create no rights or liabilities and shall not

affect the validity of any property acquisitions by

purchase or condemnation.

(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as creating

in any condemnation proceedings brought under the

power of eminent domain, any element of value or of

damage not in existence immediately prior to the date of

enactment of this Act.

TITLE LL- UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE

DECLARATION OF POLICY

Sec. 201. The purpose of this title is to establish a

uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment of

persons displaced as a result of Federal and federally

assisted programs in order that such persons shall not

suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs

designed for the benefit of the public as a whole.

MOVING AND RELATED EXPENSES

Sec. 202. (a) Whenever the acquisition of real property

for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency

in any State will result in the displacement of any person

on or after the effective date of this Act, the head of

such agency shall make a payment to any displaced

person, upon proper application as approved by such

agency head, for—

(1) actual reasonable expenses in moving himself,

his family, business, farm operation, or other

personal property;

37e

Exhibits.

(2) actual direct losses of tangible personal

property as a result of moving or discontinuing a

business or farm operation, but not to exceed an

amount equal to the reasonable expenses that would

{11-307] have been required to relocate’ such

property, as determined by the head of the agency;

and

(3) actual reasonable expenses in searching for a

replacement business or farm.

(b) Any displaced person eligibie for payments under

subsection (a) of this section who is displaced from a

dwelling and who elects to accept the payments authorized

by this subsection in lieu of the payments authorized by

subsection (a) of this section may receive a moving expense

allowance, determined according to a schedule established

by the head of the Federal agency, not to exceed $300; and

a dislocation allowance of $200.

subsection (a) of this section who is displaced from his

place of business or from his farm operation and who

elects to accept the payment authorized by this

subsection in lieu of the payment authorized by

subsection (a) of this section, may receive a fixed

payment in an amount equal to the average annual net

earnings of the business or farm operation, except that

such payment shall be not less than $2,500 nor more

than $10,000. In the case of a business no payment shall

be made under this subsection unless the head of the

Federal agency is satisfied that the business (1) cannot

be relocated without a substantial loss of its existing

patronage, and (2) is not a part of a commercial

enterprise having at least one other establishment not

38a

Exhibits.

being acquired by the United States, which is engaged in

the same or similar business. For purposes of this

subsection, the term ‘‘average annual net earnings”

means one-half of any net earnings of the business or

farm operation, before Federal, State, and local income

taxes, during the two taxable years immediately

preceding the taxable year in which such business or

farm operation moves from the real property acquired for

such project, or during such other period as the head of

such agency determines to be more equitable for

establishing such earnings, and includes any

compensation paid by the business or farm operation to

the owner, his spouse, or his dependents during guch

period.

REPLACEMENT HOUSING FOR HOMEOWNER

Sec. 203. (a)(1) In addition to payments otherwise

authorized by this title, the head of the Federal agency

shall make an additional payment not in excess of

$15,000 to any displaced persons who is displaced from a

dwelling actually owned and occupied by such displaced

person for not less than one hundred and eighty days

prior to the initiation of negotiations for the acquisition

of the property. Such additional payments shall include

the following elements:

(A) The amount, if any, which when added to the

acquisition cost of the dwelling acquired by the

Federal agency, equals the reasonable cost of a

comparable replacement dwelling which is a [11-308]

decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling adequate to

accommodate such displaced person, reasonably

accessible to public services and places of

39a

Exhibits.

employment and available on the private market. All

“determinations required to carry out this

subparagraph shall be made in accordance with

standards established by the head of the Federal

agency making the additional payment.

(B) The amount, if any, which will compensate

such displaced person for any increased interest

costs which such person is required to pay for

financing the acquisition of any such comparable

replacement dwelling. Such amount shal] be paid

only if the dwelling acquired by the Federal agency

was encumbered by a bona fide mortgage which was

a valid lien on such dwelling for not less than one

hundred and eighty days prior to the initiation of

negotiations for the acquisition of such dwelling.

Such amount shall be equal to the excess in the

aggregate interest and other debt service costs of

that amount of the principal of the mortgage on the

replacement dwelling which is equal to the unpaid

balance of the mortgage on the acquired dwelling,

over the remainder term of the mortgage on the

acquired dwelling, reduced to discounted present

value. The discount rate shall be the prevailing

interest rate paid on savings deposits by commercial

banks in the general area in which the replacement

dwelling is located.

displaced person for evidence of title, recording fees,

and other closing costs incident to the purchase of

the replacement dwelling, but not including pre-paid

expenses.

40a

Exhibits.

(2) The additional payment authorized by this

subsection shall be made only to such displaced person

who purchases and occupies a replacement dwelling

which is decent, safe, and sanitary not later than the end

of the one year period beginning on the date on which he.

receives from the Federal agency final payment of all

costs of the acquired dwelling, or on the date on which

he moves from the acquired dwelling, whichever is the

later date.

(b) The head of any Federal agency may, upon

application by a mortgagee, insure any mortgage

(including advances during construction) on a comparable

replacement dwelling executed by a displaced person

assisted under this section, which mortgage is eligible for

insurance under any Federal law administered by such

agency notwithstanding any requirements under such

law relating to age, physical condition, or other personal

characteristics of eligible mortgagors, and may make

commitments for the insurance of such mortgage prior to

the date of execution of the mortgage.

[11-309] REPLACEMENT HOUSING FOR TENANTS

AND CERTAIN OTHERS

Sec. 204. In addition to amounts otherwise authorized

by this title, the head of the Federal agency shall make a

payment to or for any displaced person displaced from

any dwelling not eligible to receive a payment under

section 203 which dwelling was actually and lawfully

occupied by such displaced person for not less than

ninety days prior to the initiation of negotiations for

acquisition of such dwelling. Such payment shall be

either—

4la

Exhibits.

(1) the amount necessary to enable’ such

displaced person to lease or rent for a period not to

exceed four years, a decent, safe, and sanitary

dwelling of standards adequate to accommodate

such person in areas not generally less desirable in

regard to public utilities and public and commercial

facilities, and reasonably accessible to his place of

employment, but not to exceed $4,000, or

(2) the amount necessary to enable such person

to make a downpayment (including incidental

expenses described in section 203(a)(1)(C)) on the

purchase of a dgcent, safe, and sanitary dwelling of

standards adequate to accommodate such person in

areas not generally less desirable in regard to public

utilities and public commercial facilities, but not to

exceed $4,000, except that if such amount exceeds

$2,000, such person must equally match any such

amount in excess of $2,000, in making the

downpayment.

RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ADVISORY SERVICES

Sec. 205. (a) Whenever the acquisition of real property

for a program or project undertaken by a Federal agency

in any State will result in the displacement of any person

on or after the effective date of this section, the head of

such agency shall provide a relocation assistance

advisory program for displaced persons which shall offer

the services described in subsection (c) of this section. If

such agency head determines that any person occupying

property immediately adjacent to the real property

acquired is caused substantial economic injury because

of the acquisition, he may offer such person relocation

advisory services under such program.

42a

Exhibits.

(b) Federal agencies administering programs which

may be of assistance to displaced persons covered by

this Act shall cooperate to the maximum extent feasible

with the Federal or State agency causing the

displacement to assure that such displaced persons

receive the maximum assistance available to them.

required by subsection (a) of this section shall include

such measures, facilities, or services as may be necessary

or appropriate in order to—

(1) determine the need, if any, of displaced

persons, for relocation assistance;

(11-310] (2) provide current and continuing

information on the availability, prices, and rentals,

of comparable decent, safe, and sanitary sales and

rental housing, and of comparable commercial

properties and locations for displaced businesses;

(3) assure that, within a reasonable period of

time, prior to displacement there will be available in

areas not generally less desirable in regard to public

utilities and public and commercial facilities and at

rents or prices within the financial means of the

families and individuals displaced, decent, safe, and

sanitary dwellings, as defined by such Federal

agency head, equal in number to the number of and

available to such displaced persons who require such

dwellings and reasonably accessible to their places

of employment, except that the head of that Federal

agency may prescribe by regulation situations when

such assurances may be waived;

(4) assist a displaced person from his business or

farm operation in obtaining and becoming

established in a suitable replacement location;

43a

Exhibits.

(5) supply information concerning Federal and

State housing programs, disaster loan programs,

and other Federal or State programs offering

assistance to displaced persons; and

(6) provide other advisory services to displaced

persons in order to minimize hardships to such

persons in adjusting to relocation.

(d) The heads of Federal agencies shall coordinate

relocation activities with project work, and other planned

or proposed governmental actions in the community or

nearby areas which may affect the carrying out of

relocation assistance programs.

HOUSING REPLACEMENT BY FEDERAL

AGENCY AS LAST RESORT

Sec. 206. (a) If a Federal project cannot proceed to

actual construction because comparable replacement sale

or rental housing is not available, and the head of the

Federal agency determines that such housing cannot

otherwise be made available he may take such action as

is necessary or appropriate to provide such housing by

use of funds authorized for such project.

(b) No person shall be required to move from his

dwelling on or after the effective date of this title, on

account of any Federal project, unless the Federal

agency head is satisfied that replacement housing, in

accordance with section 205(c)(3), is available to such

person.

44a

KM xhibits.

STATE REQUIRED TO FURNISH REAL PROPERTY

INCIDENT TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

(LOCAL COOPERATION)

Sec. 207. Whenever real property is acquired by a

State agency and furnished as a required contribution

incident to a Federal program or project, the Federal

agency having authority over the program or project

may not accept such property unless such State agency

has [11-311] made all payments and_ provided all

assistance and assurances, as are required of a State

agency by sections 210 and 305 of this Act. Such State

agency shall pay the cost of such requirements in the

same manner and to the same extent as the real property

acquired for such project, except that in the case of any

real property acquisition or displacement occurring prior

to July 1, 1972, such Federal agency shall pay 100 per

centum of the first $25,000 of the cost of providing such

payments and assistance.

STATE ACTING AS AGENT FOR FEDERAL PROGRAM

Sec. 208. Whenever real property is acquired by a

State agency at the request of a Federal agency for a

Federal program or project, such acquisition shall, for

the purposes of this Act, be deemed an acquisition by

the Federal agency having authority over such program

or project.

PUBLIC ‘WORKS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS OF THE

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AND OF THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA

TRANSIT AUTHORITY

Sec. 209. Whenever real property is acquired by the

government of the District of Columbia or the

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for a

4he

KM xhihbita.

program or project which is not subject to sections 210

and 211 of this title, and such acquisition will result in

the displacement of any person on or after the effective

date of this Act, the Commissioner of the District of

Columbia or the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority, as the case may be, shall make all relocation

payments and provide all assistance revuired of a

Federal agency by this Act. Whenever real property is

acquired for such a program or project on or after such

effective date, such Commissioner or Authority, as the

case may be, shall make all payments and meet ail

requirements prescribed for a Federal agency by title III

of this Act.

REQUIREMENTS FOR RELOCATION PAYMENTS AND

ASSISTANCE OF FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGKAM,

ASSURANCES OF AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING

Sec. 210. Notwithstanding any other law, the head of

a Federal agency shall not approve any grant to, or

contract or agreement with, a State agency, under which

Federal financial assistance will be available to pay all or

part of the cost of any program or project which will

result in the displacement of any person on or after the

effective date of this title, unless he receives satisfactory

assurances from such State agency that—

(1) fair and reasonable relocation payments and

assistance shall be provided to or for displaced

persons, as are required to be provided by a Federal

agency under sections 202, 203, and 204 of this title;

[11-312] (2) relocation assistance programs

offering the services described in section 205 shall

be provided to such displaced persons;

Aba

Exhibits.

(3) within a reasonable period of time prior to

displacement, decent, safe, and sanitary replacement

dwellings will be available to displaced persons in

accordance with section 205(c)(3).

FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS

Sec. 211. (a) The cost to a State agency of providing

payments and assistance pursuant to sections 206, 210,

215, and 305, shall be included as part of the cost of a

program or project for which Federal financial assistance

is available to such State agency, and such State agency

shall be eligible for Federal financial assistance with

respect to such payments and assistance in the same

manner and to the same extent as other program or

project costs, except that, notwithstanding any other law

in the case where the Federal financial assistance is by

grant or contribution, the Federal agency shall pay the

full amount of the first $25,000 of the cost to a State

agency of providing payments and assistance for a

displaced person under sections 206, 210, 215, and 305,

on account of any acquisition or displacement occurring

prior to July 1, 1972, and in any case where such Federal

financial assistance is by loan, the Federal agency shall

loan such State agency the full amount of the first

$25.000 of such cost.

(b) No payment or assistance under section 210 or

305 shall be required or included as a program or project

cost under this section, if the displaced person receives a

payment required by the State law of eminent domain

which is determined by such Federal agency head to

have substantially the same purpose and effect as such

payment under this section, and to be part of the cost of

the program or project for which Federal financial

assistance is available.

47a

Maxhitbita.

State agency executed before the effective date of this

title, under which Federal financial assistance is available

to pay all or part of the cost of any program or project

which will result in the displacement of any person on or

after the effective date of this Act, shall be amended to

include the cost of providing payments and services

under sections 210 and 305. If the head of a Federal

agency determines that it is necessary for the

expeditious completion of a program or project he may

advance to the State agency the Federal share of the

cost of any payments or assistance by such State agency

pursuant to sections 206, 210, 215, and 405.

ADMINISTRATION-—KELOCATIGN ASSISTANCE

IN PROGRAMS RECEIVING FEDERAL

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Sec. 212. In order to prevent unnecessary expenses

and duplications of functions, and to promote uniform

and effective administration of relocation assistance

programs for displaced persons under sections 206, [II-

313] 210, and 215 of this title, a State agency may enter

into contracts with any individual, firm, association, or

corporation for services in connection with such

programs, or may carry out its functions under this title

through any Federal or State governmental agency or

instrumentality having an established organization for

conducting relocation assistance programs. Such State

agency shall, in carrying out the relocation assistance

activities described in section 206, whenever practicable,

utilize the services of State or local housing agencies, or

other agencies having experience in the administration or

conduct of similar housing assistance activities.

——

48a

Exhibits.

REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES

Sec. 213. (a) In order to promote uniform and

effective administration of relocation assistance and land

acquisition of State or local housing agencies, or other

agencies having programs or projects by Federal

agencies or programs or projects by State agencies

receiving Federal financial assistance, the heads of

Federal agencies shall consult together on _ the

establishment of regulations and procedures for the

implementation of such programs.

(b) The head of each Federal agency is authorized to

establish such regulations and procedures as he may

determine to be necessary to assure—

(1) that the payments and assistance authorized

by this Act shall be administered in a manner which

is fair and reasonable, and as uniform as practicable;

(2) that a displaced person who makes proper

application for a payment authorized for such person

by this title shall be paid promptly after a move or,

in hardship cases, be paid in advance; and

(3) that any person aggrieved by a determination

as to eligibility for a payment authorized by this

Act, or the amount of a payment, may have his

application reviewed by the head of the Federal

agency having authority over the applicable

program or project, or in the case of a program or

project receiving Federal financial assistance, by the

head of the State agency.

such other regulations and procedures, consistent with

the provisions of this Act, as he deems necessary or

appropriate to carry out this Act.

49a

Exhibits.

ANNUAL REPORT

Sec. 214. The head of each Federal agency shall

prepare and submit an annual report to the President on

the activities of such agency with respect to the

programs and policies established or authorized by this

Act, and the President shall submit such reports to the

Congress not later than January 15 of each year,

beginning January 15, 1972, and [II-314] ending January

15, 1975, together with his comments. or

recommendations. Such reports shall give special

attention to: (1) the effectiveness of the provisions of this

Act assuring the availability of comparable replacement

housing, which is decent, safe, and sanitary, for

displaced homeowners and tenants; (2) actions taken by

the agency to achieve the objectives of the policies of

Congress, declared in this Act, to provide uniform and

equal treatment, to the greatest extent practicable, for

all persons displaced by, or having real property taken

for, Federal or federally assisted programs; (3) the views

of the Federal agency head on the progress made to

achieve such objectives in the various programs

conducted or administered by such agency, and among

the Federal agencies; (4) any indicated effects of such

programs and policies on the public; and (5) any

recommendations he may have for further improvements

in relocation assistance and land acquisition programs,

policies, and implementing laws and regulations.

PLANNING AND OTHER PRELIMINARY EXPENSES

FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING

Sec. 215. In order to encourage and facilitate the

construction or rehabilitation of housing to meet the

needs of displaced persons who are displaced from

50a

Exhibits.

dwellings because of any Federal or Federal financially

assisted project, the head of the Federal agency

administering such project is authorized to make loans

as a part of the cost of any such project, or to approve

loans as a part of the cost of any such project receiving

Federal financial assistance, to nonprofit, limited

dividend, or cooperative organizations or to public

bodies, for necessary and reasonable expenses, prior to

construction, for planning and obtaining federally

insured mortgage financing for the rehabilitation or

construction of housing for such displaced persons.

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, or any other

law, such loans shall be available for not to exceed 80 per

centum of the reasonable costs expected to be incurred in

planning, and in obtaining financing for, such housing,

prior to the availability of such financing, including, but

not limited to, preliminary surveys and analyses of

market needs, preliminary site engineering, preliminary

architectural fees, site acquisition, application and

mortgage commitment fees, and construction loan fees

and discounts. Loans to an organization established for

profit shall bear interest at a market rate established by

the head of such Federal agency. All other loans shall be

without interest. Such Federal agency head shall require

repayment of loans made under this section, under such

terms and conditions as he may require, upon completion

of the project or sooner, and except in the case of a loan

to an organization established for profit, may cancel any

part or all of a loan if he determines that a permanent

loan to finance the rehabilitation or the construction of

such housing cannot be obtained in an amount adequate

for repayment of such loan. Upon repayment of any such

loan, the Federal share of the [II-315] sum repaid shall be

credited to the account from which such loan was made,

5la

Exhibits.

unless the Secretary of the Treasury determines that

such account is no longer in existence, in which case

such sum shall be returned to the Treasury and credited

to miscellaneous receipts.

PAYMENTS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME

Sec. 216. No payment received under this title shall

be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954; or for the purposes of

determining the eligibility or the extent of eligibility of

any person for assistance under the Social Security Act

or any other Federal law.

DISPLACEMENT BY CODE ENFORCEMENT,

REHABILITATION, AND DEMOLITION

PROGRAMS RECEIVING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Sec. 217. A person who moves or discontinues his

business, or moves other personal property, or moves

from his dwelling on or after the effective date of this

Act, as a direct result of any project or program which

receives Federal financial assistance under title I of the

Housing Act of 1949, as amended, or as a result of

carrying out a comprehensive city demonstration

program under title I of the Demonstration Cities and

Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 shall, for the

purposes of this title, be deemed to have been displaced

as the result of the acquisition of real property.

TRANSFERS OF SURPLUS PROPERTY

Sec. 218. The Administrator of General Services is

authorized to transfer to a State agency for the purposes

of providing replacement housing required by this title,

any real property surplus to the needs of the United

52a

Exhibits.

States within the meaning of the Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. Such

transfer shall be subject to such terms and conditions as

the Administrator determines necessary to protect the

interests of the United States and may be made without

monetary consideration, except that such State agency

shall pay to the United States all amounts received by

such agency from any sale, lease, or other disposition of

such property for such housing.

DISPLACEMENT BY A SPECIFIC PROGRAM

Sec. 219. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

title, a person—

(1) who moves or discontinues his business,

moves other personal property, or moves from his

dwelling on or after January 1, 1969, and before the

90th day after the date of enactment of this Act as

the result of the contemplated demolition of

structures or the construction of improvements on

real property acquired, in whole or in part, by a

Federal agency within the area in New [I1-316] York,

New York, bounded by Lexington and Third

Avenues and 31st and 32nd Streets; and

(2) who has lived on, or conducted a business on,

such real property for at least one year prior to the

date of enactment of this Act;

may be considered a displaced person for purposes of

sections 202(a) and (b), 204, and 205 of this title, by the

head of the agency acquiring the real property if—

(A) the head of the agency determines that such

person has suffered undue hardship as the result of

displacement from the real property; and

53a

Exhibits. \

(B) the Federal Government acquired and held

such property for at least five years prior to the

date of enactment of this Act.

REPEALS

Sec. 220. (a) The following laws and parts of laws are

hereby repealed:

(1) The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the

Secretary of the Interior to reimburse owners of lands

acquired for development under his jurisdiction for their

moving expenses, and for other purposes,” approved

May 29, 1958 (43 U.S.C. 1221-1234).

(2) Paragraph 14 of section 203(b) of the National

Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2473).

(3) Section 2680 of title 10, United States Code.

(4) Section 7(b) of the Urban Mass Transportation

Act of 1965 (49 U.S.C. 1506(b)).

(5) Section 114 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.

1465).

(6) Paragraphs (7}(b)iii) and (8) of section 15 of the

United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1415,

1415(8)), except the first sentence of paragraph (8).

(7) Section 2 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize

the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to pay

relocation costs made necessary by actions of the

District of Columbia government, and for other

purposes”, approved October 6, 1964 (78 Stat. 1004;

Public Law 88-629; D.C. Code 5-729).

(8) Section 404 of the Housing and Urban

Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3074).

54a

Exhibits.

(9) Sections 107 (b) and (c) of the Demonstration

Cities and Metropolitan Developrnent Act of 1966 (42

U.S.C. 3307).

(10) Chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code.

(11) Sections 32 and 33 of the Federal-Aid Highway

Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-495).

(b) Any rights or liabilities now existing under prior

Acts or portions thereof shall not be affected by the

repeal of such prior Acts or portions thereof under

subsection (a) of this section.

[11-317] EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 221. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and

this Act shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

(b) Until July 1, 1972, sections 210 and 305 shall be

applicable to a State only to the extent that such State

is able under its laws to comply with such sections. After

July 1, 1972, such sections shall be completely applicable

to all States. }

(10), (11), and (12) of section 220(a) of this title aud

section 306 of title III shall not apply to any State so

long as sections 210 and 305 are not applicable in such

State.

TITLE III—UNIFORM REAL PROPERTY

ACQUISITION POLICY

(Secs. 301-305: 42 U.S.C., 4651-4655)

55a

Exhibits.

UNIFORM POLICY ON REAL PROPERTY

ACQUISITION POLICY

Sec. 301. In order to encourage and expedite the

acquisition of real property by agreements with owners,

to avoid litigation and relieve congestion in the courts, to

assure consistent treatment for owners in the many

Federal programs, and to promote public confidence in

Federal land acquisition practices, heads of Federal

agencies shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be

guided by the following policies:

(i) The head of a Federal agency shall make every

reasonable effort to acquire expeditiously real property

by negotiation.

(2) Real property shall be appraised before the

initiation of negotiations, and the owner or his

designated representative shall be given an opportunity

toe accompany the appraiser during his inspection of the

property.

(3) Before the initiation of negotiations for real

property, the head of the Federal agency concerned shall

establish an amount which he believes to be just

compensaty, therefor and shall make a prompt offer to

acquire the property for the full amount so established.

In no event shall such amount be less than the agency’s

approved appraisal of the fair market value of such

property. Any decrease or increase in the fair market

value of real property prior to the date of valuation

caused by the public improvement for which such

property is acquired, or by the likelihood that the

property would be acquired for such improvement, other

than that due to physical deterioration within the

reasonable control of the owner, will be disregarded in

56a

Exhibits.

determining the compensation for the property. The head

of the Federal agency concerned shall provide the owner

of real property to be acquired with a written statement

of, and summary of the basis for, the amount he

established as just compensation. Where appropriate the

just compensation for the [II-318] real property acquired

and for damages to remaining real property shall be

separately stated.

(4) No owner shall be required to surrender possession

of real property before the head of the Federal agency .

concerned pays the agreed purchase price, or deposits

with the court in accordance with section 1 of the Act of

February 26, 1931 (46 Stat. 1421; 40 U.S.C. 258a), for

the benefit of the owner, an amount not less than the

agency's approved appraisal of the fair market value of

such property, or the amount of property.

(5) The construction or development of a_ public

improvement shall be so scheduled that, to the greatest

extent practicable, no person lawfully occupying real

property shall be required to move from a dwelling

(assuming a replacement dwelling as required by title II

will be available), or to move his business or farm

operation, without at least ninety days’ written notice

from the head of the Federal agency concerned, of the

date by which such move is required.

(6) If the head of a Federal agency permits an owner

or tenant to occupy the real property acquired on a

rental basis for a short term or for a period subject to

termination by the Government on short notice, the

amount of rent required shall not exceed the fair rental

value of the property to a short-term occupier.

57a

Exhibits.

(7) In no event shall the head of a Federal agency

either advance the time of condemnation, or defer

negotiations or condemnation and the deposit of funds in

court for the use of the owner, or take any other action

coercive in nature, in order to compel an agreement on

the price to be paid for the property.

(8) If any interest in real property is to be acquired

by exercise of the power of eminent domain, the head of

the Federal agency concerned shall institute formal

condemnation proceedings. No Federal agency head shall

intentionally make it necessary for an owner to institute

legal proceedings to prove tne fact of the taking of his

real property.

(9) If the acquisition of only part of a property would

leave its owner with an uneconomic remnant, the head of

the Federal agency concerned shall offer to acquire the

entire property.

BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 302. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, if the head of a Federal agency acquires any interest

in real property in any State, he shall acquire at least an

equal interest in all buildings, structures, or other

improvements located upon the real property so acquired

and which he requires to be removed from such real

property or which he determines will be adversely

affected by the use to which such real property will be

put.

{11-319} (b)(1) For the purpose of determining the just

compensation to be paid for any building, structure, or

other improvement required to be acquired by subsection

(a) of this section, such building, structure, or other

58a

Exhibits.

improvement shall be deemed to be a part of the real

property to be acquired notwithstanding the right or

obligation of a tenant, as against the owner of any other

interest in the real property, to remove such building,

structure, or improvement at the expiration of his term,

and the fair market value which such building, structure,

or improvement contributes to the fair market value of

the real property to be acquired, or the fair market value

of such building, structure, or improvement for removal

from the real property, whichever is the greater, shall be

paid to the tenant therefor.

(2) Payment under this subsection shall not result in

duplication of any payments otherwise authorized by

law. No such payment shall be made unless the owner of

the land involved disclaims all interest in the

improvements of the tenant. In consideration for any

such payment, the tenant shall assign, transfer, and

release to the United States all his right, title, and

interest in and to such improvements. Nothing in this

subsection shall be construed to deprive the tenant of

any rights to reject payment under this subsection and

to obtain payment for such property interests in

accordance with applicable law, other than this

subsection.

EXPENSES INCIDENTAL TO TRANSFER OF

TITLE TO UNITED STATES

Sec. 303. The head of a Federa! agency, as soon as

practicable after the date of payment of the purchase

price or the date of deposit in court of funds to satisfy

the award of compensation in a condemnation proceeding

to acquire real property, whichever is the earlier, shall

59a

Exhibits.

reimburse the owner, to the extent the head of such

agency deems fair and reasonable, for expenses he

necessarily incurred for—

(i) recording fees, transfer taxes, and similar

expenses incidental to conveying such real property

to the United States;

(2) penalty costs for prepayment of any

preexisting recorded mortgage entered into in good

faith encumbering such real property; and

(3) the pro rata portion of real property taxes

paid which are allocable to a period subsequent to

the date of vesting title in the United States, or the

effective date of possession of such real property by

the United States, whichever is the earlier.

LITIGATION EXPENSES

Sec. 304. (a) The Federal court having jurisdiction of

a proceeding instituted by a Federal agency to acquire

real property by condemnation shall award the owner of

any right, or title to. or interest in, such real property

such sum as will in the opinion of the court reimburse

[11-320] such owner for his reasonable costs,

disbursements, and expenses, including reasonable

attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, actualiy

incurred because of the condemnation proceedings, if—

(1) the final judgment is that the Federal agency

cannot acquire the real property by condemnation;

(2) the proceeding is abandoned by the United

States.

60a

Exhibits.

(b) Any award made pursuant to subsection (a) of this

section shall be paid by the heard of the Federal agency

for whose benefit the condemnation proceedings was

instituted.

a proceeding brought under section 1346(a)(2) or 1491 of

title 28, United States Code, awarding compensation for

the taking of property by a Federal agency, or the

Attorney General effecting a settlement of any such

proceeding, shall determine and award or allow to such

plaintiff, as a part of such judgment or settlement, such

sum as will in the opinion of the court or the Attorney

General reimburse such plaintiff for his reasonable costs,

disbursements, and expenses, including reasonable

attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, actually

incurred because of such proceedings.

REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIFORM LAND ACQUISITION

POLICIES; PAYMENTS OF EXPENSES INCIDENTAL

TO TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO STATE;

PAYMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES IN CERTAIN

CASES

Sec. 305. Notwithstanding any other law, the head of

a Federal agency shall not approve any program or

project or any grant to, or contract or agreement with, a

State agency under which Federal financial assistance

will be available to pay all or part of the cost of any

program or project which will result in the acquisition of

real property on and after the effective date of this title,

unless he receives satisfactory assurances from such

State agency that—

6la

Exhibits.

(1) in acquiring real property it will be guided, to

the greatest extent practicable under State law, by

the land acquisition policies in section 301 and the

provisions of section 302, and

(2' property owners will be paid or reimbursed for

necessary expenses as specified in sections 303 and

304,

REPEALS

Sec. 306. Sections 401, 402, and 403 of the Housing

and Urban Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3071-

3073), section 35(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of

1968 (23 U.S.C. 141) and section 301 of the Land

Acquisition Policy Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 596) are hereby

repealed. Any rights or liabilities now existing under

prior Acts or portions thereof shall not be affected by

the repeal of such prior Act or portions thereof under

this section.

62a

EXHIBIT #1-B

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

MEMORANDUM

Date: December 5, 1978

In reply refer to: HCC-40

Subject: INFORMATION: Just Compensation for Signs

From: Federal Highway Administrator

To: Regional Administrators

Regions 1-10 and 15

Sections 122(a) and 122(b) of the Surface Transportation

Assistance Act of 1978 amended sections 131(g) and (k)

of title 23, U.S.C. to read as follows:

(g) Just compensation shall be paid upon the

removal of any outdoor advertising sign, display, or

device lawfully erected under State law and not

permitted under subsection (c) of this section,

whether or not removed pursuant to or because of

this section. The Federal share of such compensation

shall be 75 per centum. Such compensation shall be

paid for the following:

(A) The taking from the owner of such sign,

display, or device of all right, title, leasehold, and

interest in such sign, display, or device; and

(B) The taking from the owner of the real

property on which the sign, display, or device is

located, of the right to erect and maintain such

signs, displays, and devices thereon.

+ * + *&* *& & &

63a

Exhibits.

(k) [Nothing] Subject to compliance with

subsection (g) of this section for the payment of just

compensation, nothing in this section shall prohibit

a State from establishing standards imposing

stricter limitations with respect to signs, displays,

and devices on the Federal-aid highway systems

than those established under this section.

[New language is italicized, striken language is in

brackets.]

These two amendments overrule an opinion on the

subject of this memorandum by the Chief Counsel

transmitted to your office by former Federal Highway

Administrator Norbert T. Tiemann on December 8, 1976.

Similarly affected are memorandums issued September 6,

1972 and December 13, 1974, dealing with ordinances in

New Castle, Delaware and Madison, Wisconsin, on the

above subject and withdrawn by the Chief Counsel in

memorandums of June 20 and August 20, 1975. The

statute requires the States to provide just compensation

upon the removal of signs legally in existence on or after

November 6, 1978, the effective date of the 1978

amendments, which do not conform to the definition

found at 23 U.S.C. Section 131(c) if they wish to remain

in compliance with the Highway Beautification Act. As

of November 6, 1978, non-compliance with the

compensation requirement will subject a State to the

penalty provisions as provided by Title 23, Section

131(b).

Among other actions concerning the program is a

proposed review of the entire outdoor advertising control

program, including appropriate issuances in the Federal

more specific guidance in this area in the very near

future. KARL S. BOWERS

Karl S. Bowers

EXHIBIT #2

Peeerel yee — ernetetiee) corel oe

65a

EXHIBIT #3

Book 2514 Page 311

ADVERTISING LEASE

This Agreement, made this 7th day of November 1962,

by and between Wes Outdoor Adv. Co. as Tenant and

Dupar Corp. as Landlord.

In consideration of the covenants herein set forth, the

Landlord leases to the Tenant, so much of the plot of

ground located in the Twp. of Union, County of Ocean

and State of New Jersey, known and designated as

Entire Frontage between Rt. 539 and the County Line as

may be necessary for the construction of signs and sign

structures and supports thereof measuring

approximately 12 to 60 feet in length, with the right of

the Tenant to maintain, erect, service and illuminate

advertisements on such structures for a term of two

year(s) from the date of erection at the annual rent of

$600.00, or 1.00 per lineal sign foot payable in equal

yearly installments, and the Landlord grants to the

Tenant an option to renew this lease perpetually for a

iike period of time under the same terms and conditions

and at the same rental with a like covenant for future

renewals of the Lease. Said option to renew may be

exercised by the Tenant by tendering to the Landlord

the annual rent due.

The Landlord covenants not to permit any other form

of advertising structures, advertisements, or bulletins on

any other part of said premises and it is of the essence of

this Agreement that the Landlord will not, under penalty

of damages, lease or permit any sign or signs nearer than

300 feet of either end of the structures of the Tenant.

The Landlord will not obstruct the view of the Tenants

structures and grants to the Tenant, permission to

66a

Exhibits.

remove any obstruction to the view of the sign

structures, and at the option of the Tenant to trim trees,

shrubs, and other growth to keep the view of said signs

unobstructed.

The parties hereto understand and agree that any

equipment placed upon the land by the Tenant shall be

and remain the property of the Tenant, and the same

may be removed from the leased premises at any

reasonable time after the expiration of this Lease or any

renewal thereof.

The Landlord represents and warrants that he is the

owner or agent of the premises described herein and that

he or she has a full authority of the owner of said

premises to make this Lease.

It is expressly understood that neither the Landlord

nor the Tenant is bound by stipulations, representations,

or agreements not printed or written in this Lease. This

Lease shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon

the personal representatives, heirs, successors and

assigns of the parties hereto.

This Lease is payable $200 during November and $400

during July of each year.

JODI GREEMAN (L.S.)

Landlord

WESLEY KENNETH BELL, PRES. (L.S.)

Tenant

Wes Outdoor Adv. Co.

DI ERIE ere ys at

TERY oO aa

67a

Exhibits.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY )

Ss.:

COUNTY OF OCEAN )

BE IT REMEMBERED THAT IN THIS 7th day of

November in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Nine

Hundred and Sixty-two, before me, the undersigned, a

Notary Public of New Jersey, personally appeared

Wesley Kenneth Bell who I am satisfied is the Lessor

mentioned in the within Lease, to whom I first made

known the contents thereof, and thereupon he

acknowledged that he signed, sealed & delivered the

same as & for his voluntary act and deed for the uses &

purposes therein expressed.

JEANNE L. GERASIN

Notary Public (Seal)

A Notary Public of

New Jersey

My Commission Expires

Oct. 16, 1966

Return to—

“ADVERTISING SPECIALISTS’’-

WES OUTDOOR ADV. CO.

Manahawkin, N.J.

P.O. Box 538 LYceum 7-2100

Ee ae ee

oh os a om ars eee }

SPATS RAE eaten Bc. SNe NR

({@-€) BLt ‘a's

aa esnieutis

XXX wa =

€g-0F-6 269T exoours lye 4 *435

vidun> “1 Gulpueg OZ) AQ Bemaircen “6T e810 ‘eI e6@g fT) “On c6prg “OT (OA 4 40 jUl4g) Owen / HUPY CT

Octo ame eens enene oan ee-seeeee Scam. a= +. ames e- e -

——— — - —<—— = _—— <

- a es a a me ae oe —— eee eee

= 1S SS SRY Oi IN AEN NN ER GAMERS TW2erLO$er---------ddney

Ue @2eM smeTqord so squepfouys ou 4Bu, peyOU eq prnous WIC!

-_ -_—-——

«TTT red _*penuzyuos xuom em “pefego oq PTNOm ganoo euy wours

uo ace fuy uw f£Tuo qvuy PesTAPY SBM TTed *uW “*pepuedeurstp

oedeur Zurprtng da, pasosseqs

m+ o- . - - ‘ -- -_ -

-_— -—-—— = -_—-— —_ - . . - -_- Cl ae ae

| _ __WAEA £Te48Tpoumy geoute eusos yy 48 poatssy Treg LeTsom

TTA Gow “UoFZwooT eAOge ey, 07 Hooppwug *ady YiTM Peposdoag ~~ ~~~ ~~

_.. €@p}s qQ0q Huoje euFts pracqtitq peywoot AyTeferiy jo ~eaowor

BAILWUYUYN ‘st

> ase

“el

“et

“tt

NOILWNYOSNI

aks Fey moneonsneey sem (004 1 8 19S 1 py 401039 OdA, Apog eA onew shinai “oT

OfSt uED0 UAV VUE dal pxosyeis 214 HS

0005 ‘vAw “36 Adunod ‘gs ANMAHUNY “WE (Av mati, / 300115) JUepISU; 40 UO1}e907 *¢

wmoygugsodsusry yo 4deq

(oped sesy) eucug ‘we sseuppy ‘8

Lester mon JO 09495

sOQUAN “S'S "BL "COO we WIM / WHA °2

UZ9~60 [Dns MVE | F9-0F-6 Od fN 3eyeev] 2TV | | UozreHON],

sequins 60> ‘9 ous * a9 ‘» qemu eps 2] EK / voners *t)

‘4Od3Y SNOLLVE3dO , air 39110d 3LV1S A3SH30.M3N -

v8-TE-OT

EXHIBIT #5

7la

geTod eseul, “peqzeooT are seTod suoudeTs3 z1 ATeqewrxoxide wpTum uo pueT am 30 druszeumo eno

quTod 9uj useq sey UOTRBOOT STUL ‘0°¢z 3SOdeTTU sQEUmRie 7; oANCH O93 AeKTEG

". ; *" ‘S. ‘. e' » } < y a “« x

- * | om? eon te “~s- ong ween a og we |

uuCwoIS Wey — vourTy LmeD - - 4 oq — |) — sIeGen¢

| i

onrea Aysedosg vejOrs ~eQ

poeenasy wuetmg — TOUR — SEIN A pO METAsEEE] — POwsIOpIEg 1924085 JeIDE, PYR VoUrIOdHG — woum Ag SUM — PUTO, HOuERAR [eRtAyg

— meeQmery, 2 suejes89aD pve wpuy opr, veye, VOUTyY — >EdENE 10 BrOIEHNOGg OQINEG — BWwHHA jFuOUPPYy Apwep, Pye im pewrory

eR .

w ww vs AJ wa

CHAE [eye wary Ssh

— —

om. < 4d . .

e _"

ery pt ey SOE bey a = a och, Apeg

ete Ne sty . ee Wee ae

ZZZE-LES IN ‘UT yMeyeueH ‘72 93NCH

me nemey ithe |”

TOTTI ¥8-SZ-0 Tred SoM aq NVEDO

omy pee meg REPL) foun rT) Ou odey vowmy 62 > + ‘si

D°eZ aw * (SPTS tAMOS) ZL sary OB

S* LIGIHXS

—_ weppy owen MA Zhe

> we. * >

oO ufts Trea sem ‘*L°O°d

‘keexel MON JO 9343S

pomrany f.renimna’ CE . wv

qe Cor) 1, eervetesg cf 7S 4} ee ,

LUO4TE ATVNIWITIB ANIWLEV9G 391704 dIHSNMOL GEOdVIS

73a

EXHIBIT #6

WES CUTDOOR ADV. CO.

Manahawkin, N.J.

Established 1957 P.O. Box 538 Zip 08050

609-597-3222 ~

RECEIVED

FEB 25 1985

Assistant Attorney General

JAMES J. CIANCIA

James J. Ciancia February 25th., 1985

Assistant Attorney General

Transportation Section

N.J. Dept. of Transportation

Hughes Justice Complex C.N. 112

Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Dear Mr. Ciancia:

+Attached-ie} (W.B.) Upon receipt I will supply a copy of

a survey completed by my engineer today, on Lot 8

Block 120, in Stafford Township.

Your designation of this parcel is #L22B.

This survey clearly shows that the billboard poles are not

on State D.O.T. right-of-way.

This parcei and billboard were not at issue before Judge

Thompson, when she made her decision on September

28th., 1983 (see Monteforte certification attached).

Your agency illegally removed the billboard at this site,

in 1968 and again on September 30th., 1983 and

attempted again, for a third time, to remove the re-

construction on October 25th., 1984.

74a

Exhibits.

I have been informed that your agency has again

scheduled this site for demolition on February 2é6th.,

1985 (tomorrow) and I am informing you by service of

this letter and attachments, that I own the lands in

question and that the State has “no rightful access”’.

Mr. William Anderson, senior engineer with the New

Jersey Department of Transportation, is familiar with

this parcel of land and is also familiar with the State’s

error in the actual locating of the property lines. Mr.

Anderson worked on the original survey of this site for

myself, when he was employed by Thomas J. Taylor,

Engineers in the 1960's.

I suggest that you immediately correct your maps after

the proper locating of this site.

The State chose not to defend their survey in the matter

of Wes Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Ole Hansen & Sons v.

N.J. D.O.T., Docket No. “-25351-68 and now, to re-

assert their position is barred by res judicata and

collateral estoppel and in fact, my most recent survey

shows that the State is incorrect.

I do hope that your agency will discontinue these

oppressive actions which have become evident over the

years, resulting in needless court actions for both of us.

Sincerely,

WESLEY K. BELL

Wesley K. Bell t/a

WES OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO.

P.O. Box 538 188 Route #72

Manahawkin, N.J. 08050

WKBlab (609) 597-3222

Encl.

cc: John Nettleton, N.J.D.O.T.

Serta amen glcin

Pes :

Sees de,

So gear ee =

75a

EXHIBIT #7

News Article with Photo, November 1, 1984

Page 1, Beacon, Thursday, November 1, 1984

Bell wins one in new billboard battle ;

Tract ownership

is questioned

and causes delay

By NEIL A. SHEEHAN

News Editor

MANAHAWKIN — It began

almost the same way as a scene

played out slightly more than a year

ago but this time the results were

work crew arrived at the site of a

partially constructed billboard on

Route 72 near the southbound exit to

Route 9 and owned by former

Stafford Township Mayor Wesley K.

Bell.

Ordered by the staie to remove

pilings erected for the sign because

they allegedly encroach on state

property, the crew of about 15

brought with it a crane, several

trucks and assorted equipment to

perform the task. A State Police

officer also accompanied the crew.

Bell, owner of the Wes Outdoor

Advertising Co., arrived at the scene

as the crew was about to begin work

and convinced DOT supervisor John

Nettleton and State Trooper David

Scalley of the Tuckerton Barracks to

wait until he could obtain proof that

he owned the site and that the action

with him documents from his long-

Txnes- Beacon photc by Nell A. Sheehan

Billboard

Page 6, Beacon, Thursday. November 1, 1984

Continued from pege 1

the crew had to remove the

sign was incorrect because

the courts had not ruled on

the ,

“You have no notice on

ferring with Nettleton,

Scalley advised the crew to

leave because it did not

have enough proof to back

up its order. He warned

Bell, however, that the

crew would return with a

more specific order and

someone familiar with the

case.

“The issue is when we

come back next time we’re

going to have the nece

paperwork to do the

necessary work,” Scalley

said. “We'll also have

court’s ruling, began

rebuilding it last spring.

Township officials

charged that the con

term legal battle with the state over Former Stafford Mayor Wesley K. Bell, owner of Wes Outdoor Advertising, searches his someone who knows more

the site. Bell argued that the order records for deed to property on Reute-72 to prevent state from removing billboard pilings,

Continued on pege6 = while State Police Sgt. David Scalley waits behind Bell.

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

77a

EXHIBIT #8

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION—OCEAN COUNTY

WESLEY K. BELL, t/a WES OUTDOOR

ADVERTISING CO.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TOWNSHIP OF STAFFORD, a municipality in the

County of Ocean, State of New Jersey, ROBERT H.

MEARS, Construction Official of the Township of

Stafford, and THE COUNTY OF OCEAN,

Defendants.

Docket No. L-048921-84 P.W.

CIVIL ACTION

ORDER FOR JUDGMENT

This matter having been brought before the Court

upon the plaintiff, Wesley K. Bell, t/a Wes Outdoor

Advertising Company, having filed a Verified Complaint

in Lieu of Prerogative Writ against the Township of

Stafford, Robert H. Mears, the Construction Official of

the Township of Stafford and the County of Ocean; and

Schuman & Butz, P.A. being substituted as attorneys

for plaintiff in place of Sterns, Herbert & Weinroth, P.A.;

and Gilmore & Monahan, P.A. having filed an Answer on

behalf of the defendant the Township of Stafford and

Robert H. Mears; and Berry, Kagan, Privetera &

Sahradnik having filed an Answer on behalf of the

78a

Exhibits.

County of Ocean; it further appearing from the record

that summary judgment was granted in favor of the

defendant the County of Ocean and Robert H. Mears on

Count 4 of the Complaint thus removing the defendant,

the County of Ocean, as a party for trial; and this matter

having been brought before the Court for trial and

during the course of the trial, the plaintiff moved to

amend the Complaint to challenge the validity of

Ordinance 85-68 which ordinance was adopted during the

pendancy of this action and subsequent to Ordinance 84-

35 which was the subject matter of the Complaint; and

the Court after considering the testimony of the

witnesses presented at trial; and after considering the

legal argument of counsel; and for good cause having

been shown;

It is therefore on this 14 day of March, 1986,

ORDERED as follows:

1. Ordinance No. 84-35 and Ordinance No. 85-68 are

constitutionally valid Ordinances and legally adopted

Ordinances.

2. The plaintiff may not re-erect a billboard on Lot

26A, Block 145A.

3. The plaintiff may re-erect a billboard previously

removed from Block 120, Lot 8. This Court finds that

the billboard was improperly removed by the New Jersey

Department of ‘Transportation and as_ such, the

negligence and/or wrongdoing of the Department of

Transportation, is imputed to the Township of Stafford

and the Township of Stafford may not enforce its zoning

ordinance prohibiting the erection of a billboard on that

site.

79a

Exhibits.

4. The plaintiff may not repair the existing billboard

upon Block 158A, Lots 114 and 119 by relocating

thereon a billboard from Lot 3, Block 181.

5. The plaintiff, before erecting a billboard on Block

120, Lot 8, shall prepare the necessary application and

submit the same to the Construction Code Official,

Robert H. Mears, along with a copy of a site diagram

showing the location of the billboard on the subject site.

6. The Order granting a Stay in this matter signed by

the Honorable Henry H. Wiley, J.S.C. on the first day of

August 1984 is hereby dissolved and the plaintiff is

hereby ordered to remove the utility poles, billboard face

and all portions of the billboards from Block 145A, Lot

26 no later than four weeks from the date of this Order.

If the plaintiff fails to remove the same, then it may be

removed by the defendant, the Township of Stafford’s

employees, and the costs thereof shall be paid by the

plaintiff.

WILLIAM J. KEARNEY, J.S.C.

WJ KEARNEY

8la

EXHIBIT #49

o00oe Jee oeeeeeee eacoed> oe

SSSSSHSSESSSSESEOSE SEES OOEE Pin... TI

neil

panels APPLICATIONS OF WES OUTDOOR ABvERTINING CO.

AMS EXGISTING SIGNS BEING LITIGATED

a $

& APPLICATIONS ABANDONED

Gy 1Oms Licinsem 10 Wes OuTBOKR ADVERTISING ce.

al COMNBEMMATIONS WITHDRAWN

MO CONDEMNATIOWS EVER STARTEO

“2 .

oS:

° ry

i 1’

, bea*

pecccccccccccevesscosscososessssses F900 S00 0009

eorvcee ee

Dawceccscscsersiee

a —

PARCELS R16, R17, 18C, 19C, Beez

L168, LI7C, LR188, 12198, 1228, 19K;

| | 1238, 1248, 139 & 40

PARCEL (48

PARCELS

LI7E &170 parce. L228 parce. L2R°31D

\— —-%,

tema

y MAMAN Ae Ei : \

f/ aque

ee ee

83a

EXHIBIT #10

IRWIN I. KIMMELMAN

Attorney General of New Jersey

Attorney for Defendants

Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex

CN 114

Trenton, New Jersey 08625

(609) 292-5709

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the District of New Jersey

WESLEY K. BELL, Individually and d/b/a

WES OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO.,

Plaintiff,

Vv.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JOHN J. DEGNAN

DOROTHY ANDRES, AND NEW JERSEY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 80-531

CERTIFICATION

NICKOLAS F. MONTEFORTE, of full age, says:

1. On November 8, 1977, the Department of

Transportation served upon Wesley K. Bell eight notices

of eight separate sign encroachments on State right of

way. Those notices, copies of which are attached as

Exhibit “K,’’ were as follows:

84a

Exhibits.

GENERAL PROPERTY

| PARCEL SIGN

SIGN ENCROACHMENT MAP PARCEL NOS.

3SE9-86 L-11B

3SE9-87 L-22, 23 & 23B*

3SE9-88 L-4B

3SE9-89 L-17G

3SE9-90 L-17D

3SE9-91 L-22B

3SE9-92 L-22C

3SE9-93 L-2R31D

2. On December 19, 1977, Michael Malin, Esquire,

attorney for Wesley K. Bell, wrote to the Department

requesting that the Notices of Encroachments, copies of

which are attached as Exhibit ‘‘L,’’ be withdrawn or, in

the alternative, that a hearing be granted.

3. Concurrently, on or about December 19, 1977,

Wesley K. Bell, through his attorney Mr. Malin,

instituted Civil Action No. 77-1531 in the United States

District Court.

4. Also, concurrently, the case of Bell v. Kohl was

proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Ocean County, Docket No. C-2643-73.

In that action, Bell was attacking, inter alia, the

constitutionality of the Eminent Domain proceeding

previously instituted by the Department of

Transportation against properties in which he claimed an

interest.

5. Although it was the opinion of the Department

that the encroaching signs were not the subject of a

valid permit, and were on State property, and, therefore,

* This parcel is not involved in the matter now before the Court.

85a

Exhibits.

were not within the purview of N.J.A.C. 16:41-8.11 with

respect to the hearing entitlement provisions of N.J.A.C.

16:41-8.12, copies attached as Exhibit ‘‘M,’’ nevertheless

because of the various claims presented by Mr. Bell in

the civil action, it was decided that a hearing would be

desirable under the circumstances.

6. Thereafter on January 10, 1978, Mr. Bell, via his

attorney, Mr. Malin, was notified that a hearing would

be held on January 31, 1978, copy attached as Exhibit

——

7. Subsequently, on January 17, 1978, Mr. Malin

wrote to ine advising that he intended to file a motion to

restrain the hearing and requesting that I agree to hold

up the hearing, copy attached as Exhibit ‘‘O.”’

8. On January 25, 1978, I replied to Mr. Malin

advising him to seek adjournment from the hearing

examiner and that I would not consent to it but also

would not oppose his request, copy attached as Exhibit

“i

9. In early January 1978, Wesley K. Bell moved in

United States District Court to enjoin the hearing.

10. On January 31, 1978, at the hearing Mr. Bell,

through his attorney, took the position that the

Commissioner of Transportation could not proceed with

the hearing and stated that the subject of the hearing

was before both the United States District Court (Civil

Action No. 77-1531) and the Appellate Division of the

Superior Court of New Jersey (Docket No. A-3891-76).

Transcript p. 6, L. 20 through p. 8, L. 20, copies

attached as Exhibit ‘Q”’.

86a

Exhibits.

li. At the hearing, I represented the New Jersey

Department of Transportation. The hearing proceeded

until 4:40 p.m. on January 31, 1978. Contrary to the

position taken by the plaintiff, the hearing was not

adjourned because of a request made either by the

Department of Transportation or me as their counsel. It

was adjourned at that time due to the lateness of the

hour, and because Mr. Malin had to ‘make a train.’’

(Transcript p. 129, L. 21 through p. 130, L. 9, copies

attached as Exhibit ‘“‘R.”’) Former Attorney General

John J. Degnan was not present at this hearing. He had

been sworn in as Attorney General less than two weeks

earlier.

12. The hearing was adjourned without date. To the

best of my knowledge, Former Attorney General Degnan

knew of neither the hearing nor the subject matter of

said hearing.

13. It is my recollection that Mr. Malin did not wish

the matter to resume until after he had received and read

the transcript and until he had returned from a trip to

the Soviet Union which he had planned to take in March

of 1978. He was to contact me with respect to a

continuance date for the hearing.

14. On February 8, 1978, Mr. Malin requested that

the State produce certain witnesses at the next hearing

date, copy attached as Exhibit ‘‘S.”’

15. Mr. Malin’s request was denied by letter dated

March 9, 1978, copy attached as Exhibit ‘‘T.”’

16. I never heard from Mr. Malin again with respect

to the hearing. I did not know when he returned from

vacation, nor did he advise me that he was at any time

87a

Exhibits.

ready to proceed with the matter or advise me of a date

on which the matter could be rescheduled. This action

was consistent with the move to enjoin the hearing.

17. Once the hearing was assigned to a _ hearing

examiner in December 1977, the defendant, Dorothy L.

Andres, took no part in the proceedings. She neither

adjourned the matter nor did she have the authority to

adjourn. Further, she had nothing whatsoever to do with

the rescheduling.

18. In due course, the issues which were before the

hearing examiner and which according to Mr. Malin were

exactly the same as those before the United States

District Court and the Appellate Division of the Superior

Court of New Jersey (Hearing transcript, supra) were

decided in favor of the Department of Transportation by

those courts. As a result of the decisions, which applied

to all parcels, (except L2R31D which had not been a part

of those actions) it became absolutely clear that

ownership of the land was vested in the State of New

Jersey, Department of Transportation. In addition, the

location of the signs on the property has been admitted

by Wesley K. Bell in his verified petition for temporary

restraints in this action. Hence, it is clear that if the

hearing were to be resumed it could reach no conclusion

that has not already been decided. It is just as clear

that, as a matter of law, no permit may be issued for

these signs and that they must be removed.

19. Regarding parcel E31B/L2R31D, Department

records revealed a deed date December 5, 1974, recorded

January 8, 1975, from Egan Kahl, et al, into the State,

Book 3433, Page 225, Ocean County. However, there was

a previously recorded contract for sale of the same parcel

88a

Exhibits.

from the prior owner, Gustav Foster, to Wesley K. Bell.

The contract was dated December 26, 1968, and recorded

on December 30, 1968, in Book 2865, Page 400, Ocean

County. Foster conveyed to Kahl, et al, by deed dated

November 24, 1971, recorded February 8, 1972, in Book

3186, Page 797.

It was the Department’s understanding that there had

been a breach of the 1968 contract by Mr. Bell and that

the contract was invalid. Nevertheless, while asserting

tit’ = the E31B/L2R31D property, it was recognized

taat Mr, Bell should be given the opportunity to produce

uuy and all documentation to show entitlement to a

perrait for the sign located on E31B/L2R31D. Both the

November 13, 1979, letter, Exhibit “F’’, Andres

Affidavit, and the February 5, 1980, letter, attached

hereto as Exhibit ‘‘U,”’ requested that he provide this

documentation. Plaintiff has failed to respond to either

letter and it is submitted that no such documentation

can be produced.

20. Attached for the convenience of the court are the

following documents (respectively Exhibits ‘‘V"’ through

BB") indicating proof of ownership of the subject

parcels by the New Jersey Department of

Transportation:

a. Complaint, Declaration of Taking or Lis

Pendens, where applicable, Order for Possession,

Report of Commissioners, and, if appealed, a copy of

the Judgment on Appeal for parcels L-11B, L-4B, L-

17G, L-17D, L-22B and L-22C.

b. Copy of Deed dated December 5, 1974,

recorded January 8, 1975, from Egan Kahl, et al, to

New Jersey Department of Transportation.

89a

Exhibits. ,

The foregoing statements made by me are true. I am

aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by

me are wilfully false, I am subject to punishment.

NICKOLAS F. MONTEFORTE

EXHIBIT #11

IRWIN I. KIMMELMAN

Attorney General of New Jersey

Attorney for Defendants

Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex

CN 114

Trenton, New Jersey 08625

(609) 292-5709

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the District of New Jersey

WESLEY K. BELL, Individually and d/b/a

WES OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO.,

Plaintiff,

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JOHN J. DEGNAN,

DOROTHY ANDRES, and NEW JERSEY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 80-531

AFFIDAVIT OF DONALD CATTS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY )

) Ss.:

COUNTY OF MERCER )

DONALD CATTS of full age, being duly sworn

according to law, deposes and says:

i. I am employed by the New Jersey Department of

Transportation in the present capacity of Senior

Engineer and have been employed by DOT for the past

19 years.

9la

Exhibits.

2. During the latter part of 1977, I served as Chief of

a Field Party assigned to survey the location of the Wes

Outdoor Advertising Company signs which are the

subject of the present action and which were also the

subject of Violation Notices sent out in November, 1977.

3. As a result of that survey a map plotting of each

encroachment was made on the existing State Highway

Department General Property Parcel Map applicable to

each parcel.

4. True and exact copies of these maps showing each

parcel and its respective encroachment are attached

hereto as Exhibits A through D.

5(a) Parcel L11B appears on Exhibit A: General

Property Parcel Map Route 72, Section 6, Sheet 3 of 7.

(b) Parcel L4B appears on Exhibit B: General

Property Parcel Map Route 72, Section 7, Sheet 1 of 11.

Exhibit C: General Property Parcel Map Route 72,

Section 7, Sheet 2 of 11.

(d) Parcel L2R31D appears on Exhibit D: General

Property Parcel Map Route 72, Section 7, Sheet 3 of 11.

DONALD D. CATTS

Donald Catts

Sworn and subscribed before me

this 2nd day of September, 1982

NICKOLAS F. MONTEFORTE

Nickolas F. Monteforte

An Attorney-at-Law of New Jersey

92a

EXHIBIT 412

(Seal)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Department of Transportation

1035 Parkway Avenue

Trenton, New Jersey 08625

In Reply Please Refer to

Route: 72

Section: 7

Parcel: L2R31D

Kahl, Ackaway

Al Am Sagner

Commissioner

February 3, 1975

Mr. Michael Ackaway

368 Hilltop Road

Toms River, New Jersey

Dear Mr. Ackaway:

The State Treasurer has issued a warrant check for

$12,000.00, No. A711800, dated January 29, 1975,

payable to Egon Kahl & Ede Kahl and Michael & Rita

Ackaway, in settlement of the claim against the State of

New Jersey by reason of the conveyance to the State of

the above designated parcel. This check will be

forwarded upon the disposition of the following.

1. Proof to be furnished of payment of the 1975

real estate taxes to the date of possession.

2. Bargain and Sale Deed to Be Produced:

From Wesley Kenneth Bell, for easement as

contained in DB3187 page 1.

93a

Exhibits.

3. Notification of acceptance of possession to be

furnished this office by the Bureau of Property and

Relocation. This can be accomplished by notifying

Mr. Paul Pearson, Freehoid, NJ, at the following

telephone number: 201-431-4500.

4. The enclosed Order of Dismissal to be

executed and returned to this office.

Very truly yours,

PAUL J. HOWARD

Paul J. Howard, Supervisor

609-292-3222

Settlement Section

Bureau of Titles

PJH:mef

Enclosure I spoke (illegible)

94a

EXHIBIT #13

(Seal)

State of New Jersey

Department of Transportation

1035 Parkway Avenue

Trenton, New Jersey 08625

In Reply Please Refer To

Route: 72

Section: 7

Parcel: L2R31D

Kahl, et al

Al Am Sagner

Commissioner

March 13, 1975

Mr. Michael Ackaway

368 Hilltop Road

Toms River, New Jersey

Dear Mr. Ackaway:

Reference is made to the easement over the subject

parcel held by Westley Kenneth Bell. It is my

understanding that Mr. Bell has refused to execute a

deed releasing his leasehold interest into said parcel to

the State of New Jersey.

If Mr. Bell’s position is unchanged, this office has no

other recourse but to rescind the agreement entered into

between yourself, your wife, Rita, Mr. and Mrs. Kahl,

and the State of New Jersey. Would you be kind enough

to advise this office as to Mr. Bell’s present attitude in

this matter.

95a

Exhibits.

If Mr. Bell refuses to release his leasehold interest,

would you be kind enough to return to this office the

unsigned Order of Dismissal forwarded to you under my

correspondence of February 3, 1975. Enclosed for your

convenience find self-addressed envelope.

Very truly yours,

PAUL J. HOWARD

Paul J. Howard, Supervisor

Settlement Section

Bureau of Titles

PJH:mef

Enclosure

96a

EXHIBIT #14

Parcel 4L2LR31D

Subject—Loss of Advertising Revenue Because of

State’s Refusal to Consider or Issue Advertising Permits

on Subject Premises Listed Above

September 1968 to September 1969 $1,400.00

$1,400.00 = $ 2,800.00

September 1969 to September 1970 $1,500.00

$1,500.00 = $ 3,000.00

September 1970 to September 1971 $1,800.00

$1,800.00 = $ 3,600.00

September 1971 to September 1972 $2,600.00

$2,600.00 = $ 5,200.00

September 1972 to September 1973 $3,000.00

$3,000.00 = $ 6,000.00

September 1973 to September 1974 $3,000.00

$3,000.00 = §$ 6,000.00

September 1974 to September 1975 $3,500.00

$3,500.00 = $ 7,000.00

Semtember 1975 to September 1976 $3,500.00

$3,500.00 = $ 7,000.00

September 1976 to September 1977 $3,600.00

$3,600.00 = $ 7,200.00

September 1977 to September 1978 $4,200.00

$4,200.00 = $ 8,400.00

September 1978 to September 1979 $4,300.00

$4,300.00 = $ 8,600.00

September 1979 to September 1980 $4,500.00

$4,500.00 = $ 9,000.00

potas $5,000.00 = $ 9,500.00

Chrysler sign fin-

isher Oct. 12, September 1981 to September 1982 $5,000.00

1982

TOTAL LOSS OF INCOME

ON THIS PARCEL $88,300.00

Interest to be added at future

date of Judgment $

‘yuauapyjas fo aypp ay} 03 uossassod fo azpp ays

wosf aud aspyosnd ay3 fo azunjnq pivdun ay} uo %,9 3 jsasazut ‘yuawuysnipp fo fom fig pamozo aq poye

4a AS 9yt way? ‘suamazyas {

Ln: -

4 fh $a , ¢ IT? BS wo 3 6 OF 7 40g USO 2q ’ . ae ¢ 37228: fo cig ay} ‘

$ D Lobb +g sads0y 345ND 49430 pun spojuas_ Aysadosd \e68s0y9 We pup sae pation, “

‘papnqua aq fipw sefng ayy yor 03 uoNID ajqnynba 40 oda) fund ajnoasoad finwe sofing oy) 40 ‘foaans

Suryow pup 372 ay} Fuiuiunxs fo sosuvdxa ajqnuospas Oy) YBN 4sayjaTO} ‘sofing ay) 03 PaUusnjas aq BpMYS

sjugmApd so yusuifnd asoqo ay) ‘uoindo ssahing yo uay) ‘aynut uDd 49),95 DY} SD 9)) YOns ydazov 0}

Suipimun ss safing ay) pun ‘2a0qn sp sajjag ayy Aq apous aq youudd 2313 Yons yoy) yuaaI ay} UT “S

‘pajdaoxa 402} pud 409M ajqnuospas ‘240 MOU JuDS JY} SD UO1ZIPUOD BUDS ay] Ut pofiaaUOD aq YDYS

sastwasd ay pup Moree eT Seer eee Laer e ee che SO GUA CO 8 4A 4466 64.6 0b 5 Os Ee 84 6 8

97a

EXHIBIT 415

sp joasayj Azuvdno20

40/pup asn ayi pqryosd ppm ynyn ‘sasiwmasd pros ay} Gusj2afJp psooas fo sunjd so aouvfizauoz fup us

$U0139143894 OU 34D 3494} JDY} SaazuDsONT ‘saaamoy ‘sazas ay} ‘psoras fo suOoIzr14yse4 Tusixa J]P V} Joalqns

aq 07 St 3193 ayy puD ‘juamaasZD sty; fo aywp ays fo sv aasypsado aq 0} asnD{D S14} ‘(pajnis Utasay SD

‘ansd aspyosnd ay} fo yunoo90 uo pasjddp aq 40 ‘aj34a8 03 safng ay2 fo asnpnf ay sof

sadvusp payopinby so paysajsof aq ‘uoido s4anag ay3 yD ‘poYys tunoz20 uo apow sjuauifiod 40 yuawhod

ay joasay suisay ay? YM |a2UDpPs0I00 uy fuaWazHas BulyDW jou safing ay3z fo juaaa ay} ul ‘§

i ay3 parajdwos spy fuodwo) Propet ry ° Lp ‘ ‘a ‘4a3fD passnqsip aq 0%

W BRA ee Pe ree eee re ere ree | TR cewsey sO sebesea coy

: ‘04 pasaayjap aq 07 # ‘yuauiaqz3a8 fo auy3 yo produn ‘hun fs ‘aoud “hana fo yod yons

ELbI ZSI-Gr4 ~'209T ¢

“TA ORD, 020% Ig Sei bigsl T4- "00%

| ————— $ ILbl gS! a4-‘o00ly

Sibi gs! Ty -'000l, C OLbl ys) Wd -990Cy

7 s/ — 0: ) Ard -'v0

Alb! ysl Fs —OI2% g 2 b%ble Sl Ard ey —

sD pasnocas 40 prod aq 03 anud aspysind ay; fo aounjpq ay} pun ‘sasiwaid pivs ay} 40f paap fAjzupssom

ath AES SSE RELEERER EAS D s2aNap []DYs 4aT]aSg ayy uayn pe anc siyi fo aouassa ayy fo # auiy YAY

“No 4¥90]2,0° “-* Wri y ‘4D ‘OU 6l ‘ oe ey e- Fr] oeeee fo hvp: . ‘mS 3 . ‘ayy uo

in eh ea he aed Bree eee ate ek ALS SA Rk Oe narrus9 hed / ee ad ania Ng

she * _ oo oe , *s —_— j

. ‘quawmaasdD stys YN

5 ny, + + eens : ° a oe hua * * ae juawfiod vy T

eB H OM

puoINpuoo Zurnoyo{ ayz sapun

‘ss0710C rrr cere LULU LeLRCUReEEeeuasek o NY SHOHL eeeeevee SATAM_L Pe ay} 40f

11V fing pup 1138 03 290430 fjaasjoadsas safing pup 4a]]9§ 9ys WY] ‘(jassauyi ae

caafing, 2y3 pajjoo saxousasay ‘40g puoras 24) fo

; one wpa, bir gee ams nave ‘amas sip

7* * LIalH

> - a

> €| (98) “OSB! Pememy Ley pe psTeQ ee OD o@ ka peydepo eree yj oowey =.

‘

Exhibits.

~07

ni unty a. | STATE OF bea

tt Remembered. thot on thie ea

dey of FP ’ in the year of oyf Lord one Be tt Remembered, tha on thie 26 —

thousgad nine hundred and Sf, before || day of Discenthe, in the year of ove Lord die

ole eta | thousand nine hundred and SSE, By Le hak

who being Boome daly taco on ath satth, th Hlay|| ™ Buclame- aL Yeacggeet

Q-4_ de the of || personally appeared before po

the grantor within named, and t

ie t President; that

—

STATE OF

who I am satisfied Ot the grontor 2. mentioned

deponent knows the cc op’ or corporate seal of said \

Ss | in the above Agreement and acknowledged tha Aha

grantor and that the seal pQnezed to the within Agree-

ment ie such — & porate seal; that oe

Agrecment was signe the said resident

and the seal of said gtantor affix

ence of dcponent; thé said Agreeme

| signed, sealed and delivered the same as thaw

| act and deed. All of which is hereby certthey

was signed, sealed |

thereto in the pres-

and delivered as afd for the voluntar~gct and deed o “tt;

said grantor for uses and purposes thecgin expressed, |, SZ Vw s—

pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Dirdwte of said 1

grantor; and the execution thereof thie dep sub. \ Kore’

scribed his ¢ thereto as witness. Ea Se

Sworn andA bed the | My Comm ssn =, araet

day agfl yeor aforesaid WLS. 6 isry

/ ~

: w

é a

£ Gh jee gf 734 3%.

i O90 &

° aan

a U. Cy =

‘SLAC et

Bie a de ChE ANd Ohh ONS SED 4506 CGRNS EH SORECSOUESCANESNN SCHEV ESONSONITIOT

maha ceeeeeeeeee eee ee eeeeeeevreeeesesrageesseesresess

at ta yas opunasay aay Ojas9y sarod ay} ‘303134 DD SSIUN WD UE

( quawmaasan YL

‘4aq1as 2y3 fo quasso warm eys yn safing ays fiq paudyssv aq fiow

‘ss088929NS IY} 40 8% ‘sUeMDIOd

409 240 snynd yjOq 40 42y%9 FOYR TuIaa |Yy3 UA 40 ‘s4ORDAZSFUFUEPD 40 840jNIIXO ‘sspay 90;j0adsas 4394)

40 4ay ‘sy Osp ynq ‘payoudisap fiqasays fiysod ay} fifuo you upaw 0; pup saquinu sojndus pup posnd

oy? YyI0q WDIW OF PansysUO? 2q [TPYS juaweasso sys UM WIANG. PUP .ATTAS. P40 PHL

—— 2

so /

muon Puymonof sys sapnyous Ayooysoads ony ‘esouvusynddo pyo ‘pagysorap

wyausy sPuspying 40 Buypping ays 01 peyroi Ayjusuewsad saunyry [yO Saphire pusmoese NL SO

\ o oni Wang

ms sof pret 99 0; 80 servtedzo Pujquoisouls Layo pun sounUNE str ‘seyoseee Ie Me AfiRenOeY

oq fun fy ‘uosisys edu enuscss yj pus poop ley Jo Smowep vyx 20} hod Tey i

. t

10la

EXHIBIT #16

[Book 3187 Page 1] AGREEMENT

THIS INDENTURE, made this 7th day of January,

1972, is made by and between EGON KAHL and EDE

KAHL, his wife, residing at 239 Boyden Avenue,

Maplewood, New Jersey, and HARRY C.

BALDASSARRE and REINELDA BALDASSARRE,

his wife, residing at Chancellor Avenue, Irvington, New

Jersey, and MICHAEL ACKAWAY and RITA

ACKAWAY, his wife, with a mailing address of Route

#37 and Berry Avenue, Toms River, New Jersey,

hereinafter designated as the Grantors, and WESLEY

KENNETH BELL residing at Route #72, Manahawkin,

Stafford Township, hereinafter designated as_ the

Grantee, is made for and in consideration of ONE

DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and_ valuable

consideration together with the mutual covenants

contained herein and is made under the following terms

and conditions, to wit:

1. The Grantors hereby bargain, sell, grant and

convey unto the said Grantee a permanent easement

across a portion of a parcel of land conveyed to the

Grantors hereinabove named by deed from Gustav

Foster and Margaret Foster, his wife, dated November

November 24, 1971 and intened to be recorded prior to or

simultaneously with the recording of this instrument.

The within created easement is more particularly

described in “Schedule A” which is attached hereto and

made a part hereof and gives the Grantee the right to

use said property for the purpose of the erection and

maintenance of one double faced straight or ‘‘V’’ type

bill board to be erected at the sole expense of the

Grantee. The Grantee is also given the right of

pedestrian and vehicular access across the property

102a

Exhibits.

described in ‘‘Schedule A’’ which is attached hereto for

the purpose of access for maintenance and erection of

said sign or bill board.

2. The within created easement is expressly subject

to the condition that the Grantee must erect a bill board

or sign within fifteen (15) years [Book 3187 Page 2] after

the date of the execution of this agreement or the said

easement, shall terminate, be null and void and of no

effect whatsoever. The condition shall, however, in no

way effect the right of the Grantee to enter upon the

lands subject to this easement for maintenance of the

said sign once it is erected.

3. The Grantee hereby agrees to pay the pro rata

share of the real estate taxes which shall forthwith be

assessed on the vacant land, based upon the frontage

used by the Grantee and the Grantee will further agree

to pay any additional taxes which may be assessed on

the said sign or bill board.

3-B. (See Scheudle B attached).

4. Where ever in this instrument any party or parties

shall be designated or referred to by name or general

reference, such designation is intended to and shall have

the same effect as if the words heirs, executors,

administrators, personal or legal representative and

assigns had been inserted after each and every such

designation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto

set their hands and seals the day and_ year

aforementioned.

COLIN R. HAZELTONE

103a

Exhibits.

EGON KAHL [L.S.]

Egon Kahl

COLIN R. HAZELTONE EDE KAHL [L.S.]

Ede Kahl

HARRY C. BALDASSARRE [L.S. |

Harry C. Baldassarre

Reinelda Baldassarre

REINELDA BALDASSARRE|[L.S.]

MICHAEL ACKAWAY [L.S.]

Michael Ackaway

COLIN R. HAZELTONE RITA ACKAWAY [L.S.]

Rita Ackaway

COLIN R. HAZELTONE WESLEY KENNETH BELL [L.S.]

Wesley Kenneth Bell

{Book 3187 Page 3] SCHEDULE “A

BEGINNING at a point in the southwesterly sideline

of the present right-of-way of New Jersey Route No. 72,

said point being distant south 51 degrees 45 minutes 00

seconds east 946.96 feet from the intersection of the

southwesterly sideline of New Jersey Route No. 72 and

the southeasterly sideline of Jennings Road (said point

also being the northeasterly corner of Lot 31 in Block

147 according to the tax map of Stafford Township and

running thence (1) south 32 degrees 45 minutes .00

seconds west a distance of 100 feet to a point thence (2)

north 51 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds west and parallel

with the said southwesterly sideline of New Jersey Route

No. 72 a distance of 25 feet to a point thence (3) north 32

degrees 45 minutes .00 seconds east and parallel with the

first course hereinabove described a distance of 100 feet

to a point in the said southwesterly sideline of New

Jersey Route No. 72 and thence (4) south 51 degrees 45

104a

Exhibits.

minutes .00 seconds east along the said southwesterly

sideline of New Jersey Route No. 72 a distance of 25 feet

to a point said point being the point and place of

beginning.

[Book 3187 Page 4] “SCHEDULE B”

3-B. Grantee hereby agrees that any billboard to be

erected shall not obstruct from the view of the travelling

public using Route #72, a building or structure erected

by Grantors or as reserved by Grantors by plan to be

submitted to Grantee within fifteen (15) days of

notification to Grantors of the intention of Grantee to

commence the erection of said bill board, provided that

both parties hereto agree that nothing contained herein

shall preclude Grantee from erecting a bill board at a

height of twenty (20) feet from ground level nor shall

Grentee erect a bill board with its base less than twenty

(20) feet from ground level.

[Book 3187 Page 5} ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

COUNTY OF OCEAN

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this 4th day of

January, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and seventy-two, before me, the undersigned

authority, personally appeared Egon Kahl and Ede Kahl,

his wife, who I am satisfied are the Grantors in the

within agreement and acknowledged that they signed,

sealed and delivered the same as their act and deed. All

of which is hereby certified.

SS.

COLIN R. HAZELTONE

Colin R. Hazeltone

An Attorney-At-Law

Of New Jersey

105a

Exhibits.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

COUNTY OF OCEAN

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this 7th day of

January, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and seventy-two, before me, the undersigned

authority, personally appeared Harry C. Baldassarre and

SS.

‘Reinelda Baldassarre, his wife, and Michael Ackaway

and Rita Ackaway, his wife, who I am satisfied are the

Grantors in the within agreement and acknowledged that

they signed, sealed and delivered same as their act and

deed. All of which is hereby certified.

COLIN R. HAZELTONE

Colin R. Hazeltone

An Attorney-At-Law

Of New Jersey

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

COUNTY OF OCEAN

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this 7th day of

January, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine

hundred and seventy-two, before me, the undersigned

authority, personally appeared Wesley Kenneth Bell who

I am satisfied is the Grantee in the within agreement

and acknowledged that he signed, sealed and delivered

same as his act and deed. All of which is hereby certified.

SS.

COLIN R. HAZELTONE

Colin R. Hazeltone

An Attorney-At-Law

Of New Jersey

106a

Exhibits.

Prepared By: R

Shackleton and Kelly

Counsellors at Law

22nd St. and Long Beach Blvd.

Ship Bottom, New Jersey 08008

005103

Recorded

Ocean County Clerk's

Office

‘72 Feb 7 PM 2 01

Book 3187 Page 1

of Deeds Clerk

Edward (Illegible)

107a

EXHIBIT #17

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Law Division

Ocean County

Docket No. L-1917-67 P.W.

Civil Action

WESLEY KENNETH BELL and

THELMA J. BELL,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY by

DAVID J. GOLDBERG,

Commissioner of Transportation,

Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER being opened to the Court on

Tuesday, October 15, 1968, by Hartman and Schlesinger,

Esquires, attorneys for the plaintiff, Alfred A. Faxon,

III, Esquire, appearing, in the presence of Philip S.

Carchman, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf

of Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General, attorney for the

defendant, and the Court having before it a Stipulation

of the Facts herein agreed to by the attorneys for the

parties, and having considered the arguments of counsel:

108a

Exhibits.

It is on this 29 day of October 1968, ORDERED that

judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff against the

defendant determining that the plaintiff is the owner of

lands abutting its properties, which are designated as

Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Block 120 on the Tax Map of

Stafford Township, Ocean County, New Jersey, which

lands lie between the center lines and curb lines at Poe

Street and Philadelphia Avenue as shown on said Map;

and

BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant be

and is hereby required to condemn so much of said lands

as are to be taken for highway purposes.

EDWARD V. MARTINO, A.J.S.C.

We hereby consent to the above Order as to form.

HARTMAN & SCHLESINGER

Attorneys for plaintiff

By ALFRED A. FAXON, III

ARTHUR J. SILLS, Attorney General

Attorney for defendant

By PHILIP S. CARCHMAN

Deputy Attorney General

109a

EXHIBIT #18

Map Reference A

Parcel #L11B

State cancelled license to this sign without hearing

Billboards’ replacement valued at $19,000.00

Contracted Income 1983

L.B.I. Medical Center $5,200 per year

MEDICAL CARE 7 DAYS A WEEK VEAR ROUND i

LONG BEACH ISLAND MEDICAL CENTER

AT THE CAUSEWAY « LONG BEACH BLVD. SHIP BOTTOM

“YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD DOCTORS’

110a

EXHIBIT #19

Parcel #L11B - Map Reference A

Photos show State’s Destruction of Billboards on

September 30, 1983 without notice.

— ="

llla

EXHIBIT #20

Map Reference B

Parcels #L16B, L17C, LRi8B, LR19B, L22B, L23C,

L23B, L24B, L39 and 40

Licensed by New Jersey and are a part of this suit

Billboards replacement valued at $24,000.00

Beautiful Homes on the water

at Village Harbour

1% MILES STRAIGHT AHEAD

Village Harbour $4,600.00 per year

1983 Rates

Nobody Wants a Nuclear War $2,400.00 per year value

Facings being changed on left side

of westbound sign $2,400.00 per year value

1983 Rates

salen

112a

EXHIBIT #21

Parcel #L22B Map Reference B

Without notice or right of entry State employees

destroyed Billboards, in pouring rain, on September 30,

1983, accompanied by armed, uniformed State Police.

113a

EXHIBIT #22

Parcel #L4B Map Reference C

Billboards on this site, which were three and a half

stories above ground, were totally destroyed on

September 30, 1983, without notice to Plaintiff, and cut

up into small pieces on October 2, 1983, and hauled

away.

See LUXURY

: BAYFRONT LIVING

= BEACH HAVEN *

Shelter Cove Condominiams

ll4a

EXHIBIT #23

Parcel #L17G

Billboard’s replacement valued at $24,000.00

*Uahnsen ¢r OUTDOOASMAN: |

¢v ON TME RALWO MAVEN BEACH

eC ye ONE STOP. MARINE store [ + -

The Outdoorsman

$4,600.00 per year

1983 Rates

Minstgersey HANOI RELEASE OUR

Regie we BPOW/MIAS

urrveentdtutmieatt tite

First Jersey Bank $3,000.00 per year

POW/MIA $2,400.00 year value

1983 Rates

* Above billboards destroyed by State on September 30,

1983, without notice

—————————

115a

EXHIBIT #24

Parcel #L17E and L17D Map Reference E

Billboards destroyed by State employees on September

30, 1983, without notice

> Gey

matt

1l6a

EXHIBIT #25

Parcel 4LI7E and L17D Map Reference E

Billboards replacement valued at $24,000.00

Anderson Agency $5,200.00 per year

1983 Rates

EIST EM

ace, OED ow - .-- you Won'T GET A

eat’ 3 ; aq ee: eum STEFR AT... _*

‘oe % @ + 4. e°

@e< a

Maybe you can be cae of ox The Marines

Okie’s Meat Market $2,400.00 per year

U.S. Marines $2,400.00 year value

1983 Rates

1l17a

EXHIBIT #26

Parcel #L22C Map Reference F

Billboards replacement valued at $26,000.00

— BEALL'S 7 ownvowe meyate HAVEN |

— Ebina) ys etfs f ;

4 Save Time ’c* MONEY OPEN ALL Year

Under contract with

Bealls Market $4,600.00 per year

1983 Rate

ae. -"

7g Tarr | re . ‘

se | et ie ee

pe dhe m4

‘ 7. -

aay a ®

te he ae

R 2 4 +. 7%

; JOC

sateen a ee

- >

TwwhrOuses OUPLEEES

aan ne = peer

Poppy Feather Park $4,000.00 per year

1983 Rate

118a

EXHIBIT #27

Parcel L22C Map Reference F

Billboards cut down and destroyed by State employees

without notice on September 30, 1983

nln U JAS MYYR ( Be

lEY OPEN ‘ALL’ YEAR

119a

EXHIBIT #28

Parcel #L22B Map Reference G

Billboards replacement valued at $24,000.00

| |

_—

PRESTIGIOUS LAKEFROAT (Colony: :

_— | So

HOMES AT THE SHORE

Colony Lakes $4,600.00 per year

1983 Rates

HANOI RELEAS s. -y BU22 OVERS

L S, LUCILLES

ae CANDIES

JUST AHEAD

Lucilles Candies $2,400.00 per year

POW/MIA $2,400.00 per year value

Rented to Greens Army & Navy Store 1983 Rates

Billboards cut down and destroyed by State employees

on September 30, 1983 without notice

120a

EXHIBIT #29

Parcel #L2R-31D Map Reference H

Billboards replacement valued at $35,000.00

4 ~

- * & —se

Manahawkin Chrysler-Plymouth $5,000.00 per year

om ae at

RE, THEN L

Colony Lakes $4,600.00 per year

State claimed ownership to this parcel and threatened to

destroy billboards even though they had no legal right of

entry or ownership

— |

12la

EXHIBIT #30

Map Reference J

Parcels 4L3E1 and 2 and TLE-1G and 1H

Billboard’s replacement value $26,000.00

|< peepee,

Ah ae”

ENGLESIDG AVE. iM BEACH MAVEN .

SEAFOOD - STEAKS: CocKTAnS | '«

TNR Sse \ rs =

RATT Etat Pld Le IS

b« oy. aye a Vic. F

2g SN AYN TT eS

* $4 : es *4 ee ty . = . i

~ eer. |

ae ?

co ee

a e

D es tae

° *¢ o4 ra) P 2

- a e a aa

Port O’ Cail $10,200.00 per year rental

* This billboard has been in this location since 1958 and

is presently licensed by New Jersey and is part of this

litigation

122a

EXHIBIT #31

Map Reference J

Parcel #L3E1 and 2 and TLE-1G and 1H

Billboard replacement value $26,000.00

A ign of beer banking

rd on the

a Oe fe te ~maen ees fo

hh = oie Sh la

ate-.

First Jersey Bank $10,200.00 per year rental

* This billboard has been in this location since 1958 and

is presently licensed by New Jersey and is part of this

litigation referred to in Count 48, Section C

123a

EXHIBIT #32

Parcels #4L3E1 and 2 and TLE-1G and 1H

Billboard replacement value $26,000.00

“=e THE LANDS riMast...

SHIP BOTTOM HAND | ;

meee nate

+ : : »~ ee ox A ae ‘t;

Pe. - say Day a ~ ap Py oe Pee: EGnAY eG

RO as hAMZA reek 2 Mey 5H

Ship Bottom and Hand Store $10,200.00 per year rental

* This billboard has been in this location since 1958 and

is presently licensed by New Jersey and is part of this

litigation

124a

EXHIBIT #33

Map Reference J

Parcel #L3E1 and 2 and TLE-1G and 1H

Billboard replacement value $28,000.00

LURURY BATFROMT Aig ] Sa eTeMTT one Bae

COMDOm Iftum§ ACH Havin

Shelter Cove Condominiums $10,200.00 per year rental

* This billboard has been in this location since 1958 and

is presently licensed by New Jersey and is part of this

litigation

125a

EXHIBIT #34

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION, OCEAN COUNTY

DOCKEN NO. L 13980-68 P.W.

CIVIL ACTION

WES OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY,

a corporation of the State of New Jersey,

and WESLEY K. BELL,

Plaintiffs,

Vs.

DAVID J. GOLDBERG, Commissioner of

Transportation of the State of New Jersey,

Defendant.

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF NEW JERSEY )

) ss.

COUNTY OF MERCER )

CLARENCE R. PELL, being of full age and being

duly sworn upon his oath deposes and says:

1. I am a Landscape Architect for the Department of

Transportation of the State of New Jersey. I have been

employed in that capacity by the Department of

Transportation since May 1946. I hold a Bachelor of

Science Degree in Landscape Architecture from the

Michigan State College, now Michigan State University,

which I obtained in 1938. I have participated in

numerous landscaping projects for the New Jersey

126a

Exhibits.

Department of Transportation § including’ the

Department's section of the Garden State Parkway,

Federal Aid Interstate System, the Palisades Interstate

Highway (Thruway) and all other State Highway roads

in New Jersey since 1946. I am licensed to practice

landscape architecture in the State of New York, which

State requires such licenses.

2. I have read the Affidavit of Wesley K. Bell

submitted in support of the motion to dissolve the

restraints against the plaintiffs in this matter.

3. I know of no instance in which the Department of

Transportation has permitted gasoline stations to be

erected on parcels on Route 72 which the Department

intended to acquire for landscaping purposes under any

circumstances other than those stated below.

| am the head of the landscaping section of the

Department of Transportation and in charge of

developing plans for the acquisition and development of

property to be acquired for landscaping.

4. Mr. Bell has made general allegations in his

affidavit which for that reason I am not in a position to

answer. He has mentioned three specific parcels, namely:

L 13E, L 15H and L 17F. Parcel L 13E was omitted in

the early stages of our landscaping because before the

plans for that parcel were finished and a final decision

made with regard to acquisition, the gasoline station was

erected. It was decided by the department that it would

be consistent with the public interest to leave the only

functioning gasoline station in place, and for this reason

it was decided not to acquire that parcel. With regard to

the construction on Parcels L 15H and L 17F, the only

reason that the department did not move against these

127a

Exhibits.

two parcels was a failure of communciation within the

Department of Transportation. By the time I became

aware of the construction on these parcels the

construction was completed and there is nothing to gain

by obtaining an injunction. Despite the construction on

these two parcels the Department of Transportation has

every intention of proceeding with condemnation for the

acquisition and will use them for landscaping purposes.

5. In paragraph six of his affidavit, Mr. Bell again,

without specifying where, makes the general statement

that a competing advertising firm, when he does not

name, has been erecting signs and clearing vegetation

and trees. The only clearing for advertising signs of

which I am aware was done by one Tooker, another

advertising company, at a date when our plans were

incomplete. This was long before the obtaining of the

injunction against Mr. Bell. The Department of

Transportation intends to acquire a number of parcels on

which Tooker has advertising signs, but I am unaware of

any instance at all, subsequent to the date of the

injunction against the plaintiffs in this matter, in which

any outdoor advertising company has cleared land or

interfered with the vegetation in the immediate area. If

Mr. Bell will point out specifically which areas to be

acquired by the Department of Transportation are being

cleared by other advertising companies I will make every

effort to take action to see that this is stopped.

CLARENCE R. PELL

Clarence R. Pell

Sworn to and Subscr ved

before me this 28th day

of May, 1969.

ROYAL B. GIFFE™

An Attorney At Law of New Jersey

128a

EXHIBIT #35

Memorandum for Stafford Township

Re: Conference with Deputy Commissioner of

Transportation, Mullen

At: Trenton, New Jersey

Date of Meeting: February 17, 1969, at 3 P.M.

In Attendance:

For the State - Mullen, Cunningham and Blaus

For Stafford - Committeemen Boltner, Holm and

Mayor Cervetto; Engineer, Ernst; Attorney,

Schuman

Also previously in attendance: Assemblymen, Mabie

and Brown

State Beautification Program pursuant to the provisions

of Title 27

During the discussion among those above named

persons, it was disclosed that the State intended to

obtain a right-of-way on the southerly side of Bonnett

Island to a depth of 100 feet south of the bridge. They

indicated, however, that there would be no action in the

foreseeable future unless someone were to start to build

on the Island. The governing body mentioned the

extensive grants of lands to the Federal Government for

‘onservation purposes and noted its objection to the

acquisition of such a substantial portion of Bonnet

Island, thereby reducing the available ratables to the

municipality.

There was an extensive discussion concerning the

proposed 100 feet right-of-way to be acquired on either

side of the new State Highway #72, and it was agreed by

Mr. Mullen that selective thinning of trees and

undergrowth would be permitted by the property owners,

and they were to have reasonable access to their

respective properties.

129a

Exhibits.

It was also noted that the purpose and intent of the

State was not to discourage use of the property for

commercial purposes, but to attempt to prevent the

highly commercial appearance of having unbroken black

top with fluorescent fixtures, etc., immediately on the

edge of the right-of-way of the highway.

The problem of a bridge to accommodate the residents of

Beach Haven West was also discussed at length, and the

Committee was advised by Mr. Mullen that he was going

to recommend the construction of the facility to the

Commissioner of Transportation. Mr. Mullen left the

meeting for a short time, and upon his return note“ that

the bridge matter had been discussed with the

Commissioner and he felt that approval for its

construction would be forth-coming shortly.

During the course of the meeting, both Mullen and

Cunningham appeared to have agreed that the proposed

right-of-way for beautification purposes would be limited

to 60 feet rather than 100 feet. However, there was a

considerable discussion that while they would proceed

with a condemnation proceeding in its present form

describing a proposed right-of-way to a depth of 100 feet,

Mr. Mullen stated that as soon as the problems with

Wesley Bell had been resolved, the condemnation

proceeding would be amended to take only 60 feet rather

than 100 feet as shown on the pians.

However, those statements were subsequently qualified

by Cunningham and Mullen and that they said that the

uses to which the property was to be put, the

topography, the topography, etc., would be reviewed by

the Commissioner’and that the Department was not

130a

Exhibits.

committed to a 100 feet right-of-way, and in some

instances, might agree to even less than 60 feet if that

was desirable, depending upon the size of the property,

etc.

It was agreed that a letter would be written by the

Highway Department to the Township Committee that it

was unfeasible to have a traffic light at the entrance to

Beach Haven West as proposed by the residents.

l3la

EXHIBIT #36

Public Enemy No. 1

.———

NEAOTe:

ay a. BIG’

United Press international Telephoto

STICKY PICKET — New Jersey businessman Wesley

K. Bell of Manahawkin holds his placard while picket-

ing the White House in protest of a State Highway

Department decision to take over some of his advertising

billboards because they ‘violate the landscape and

scenic enhancement provisions of the highway beauti-

fication act.’ Bell said he hod appealed to both Rep.

William T. Cahill (R-N.J.) and President Nixon. Having

no luck with either, Bell decided to picket the White

House

132a

EXHIBIT #37

In reply please refer to

Route 72, Section 6

Wesley K. Bell & Wes Outdoor

Advertising Company, Inc.

(Logo)

State of New Jersey

Department of Transportation

John C. Kohl, Commissioner

Trenton 08625

November 4, 1970

Mr. Wesley Kenneth Bell .

113 Longbeach Boulevard

North Beach, New Jersey

Dear Mr. Bell:

A copy of Mr. Alfano’s letter to you dated October 21,

1970, has been referred to this office to reply to your

comments concerning relocation payments.

Our records indicate that you have been contacted

personally on many occasions by Mr. Delaney and

representatives of the Freehold office concerning the

billboards owned by you on the above premises. | am

sure Mr. Delaney has indicated that there is pending

legislation concerning relocation payment for billboards,

but to this date, we have no authority to proceed with

same.

As soon as the appropriate authorization to make

payment has been given, Mr. Delaney and/or his

representatives will contact you.

Very truly yours,

LESTER G. FINCH

Lester G. Finch

Supervisor - Area II

LGF:j1 Bureau of Property and Relocation

133a

Opinion—April 13, 1987—New Jersey

Superior Court, Appellate Division.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE

ON OPINIONS

Original Filed

Apr 13 1987

John J. Musewicz, Esq.

Acting Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISiON

A-3688-85T8

WESLEY K. BELL, t/a Wes Outdoor

Advertising Co.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

and Cross-Appellant,

TOWNSHIP OF STAFFORD, a Municipality in

the County of Ocean, State of New Jersey,

Defendant-Appellant,

and Cross-Respondent,

and

ROBERT H. MEARS, Construction Official

of the Township of Stafford, and the

County of Ocean,

Defendants.

Argued: March 23, 1987 - Decided Apr 13 1987

Before Judges Bilder, Gaynor and Scalera.

134a

Opinion—April 13, 1987.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Ocean County.

Thomas E. Monahan, argued the cause for appellant

and cross-respondent (Gilmore and Monahan,

attorneys, J. Mark Mutter, on the brief).

Wesley K. Bell, pro se, argued the cause as

respondent and cross-appellant.

PER CURIAM

This appeal stems from a dispute between Wesley K.

Bell, t/‘a Wes Outdoor Advertising Co., (Bell) and the

Township of Stafford, (Stafford) relating to an ordinance

which prohibits the building and maintenance of

billboards for off-site advertising throughout the

municipality. Three separate billboards owned by Bell

and located along Route 72 in the municipality have been

affected by that ordinance and certain condemnation

actions taken by the New Jersey Department of

Transportation (DOT). After a bench trial, the judge

ruled that the ordinance in question was constitutionally

valid and that it legitimately prohibited Bell from

rebuilding two of the billboards. However, he concluded

that Bell could legally rebuild and maintain the third one

as a nonconforming use. Stafford has appealed from so

much of that order which permits Bell to rebuild and

maintain the third billboard. Bell cross appeals

contending that the ordinance is unconstitutional and

that, for various reasons, the trial judge erred in

upholding Stafford’s action in prohibiting him from

maintaining the other two billboards. In view of our

determination that the ordinance is unconstitutional, we

find it unnecessary to reach any of the other arguments

advanced by the parties.

135a

Opinion—April 13, 1987.

Only a brief recitation of the underlying events are

necessary to understand our disposition of this matter.

During the latter half of the 1960’s Wesley K. Bell

obtained title to two plots of land located along Route 72

in Stafford identified as Block 145A, Lot 26A (Lot 26A)

and Block 120, Lot 8 (Lot 8). Thereafter, Bell constructed

a number of billboards on these properties. During the

early 1970’s the DOT sought to condemn a portion of

Lot 26A in order to widen Route 72, a State highway

which passes through Stafford. Bell unsuccessfully

challenged that condemnation action in the state and

federal courts.

On September 30, 1983 agents of the DOT entered

upon Lot 26A and cut down the billboard located

thereon. At the same time, the DOT mistakenly tore

down the billboard located on Lot 8 even though this

land had not been condemned by the State. Bell then

disassembled the billboards and removed them to his

warehouse for repairs. In May 1984 Bell reconstructed

the billboard on the portion of Lot 26A which the State

had not taken in the condemnation proceedings, despite

an order by Stafford not to do so.

On Me, 32, 1984 Bell entered into a contract with

Lewis and Jeanne Raupp to purchase a plot of land

identified as Block 158A, Lots 114 and 119 (Block 158A)

which contained a billboard thereon. On May 18, 1984

Bell purchased another billboard which he intended to

relocate to the property he had just purchased from the

Raupps. Thereafter, he filed an application with Stafford

seeking approval of the relocation.

On May 30, 1984, Stafford filed an action in the

Chancery Division, claiming that Bell needed a building

permit in order to maintain the billboard on Lot 26A.

136a

Opinion—April 13, 1987.

The judge who heard the matter held that a new building

permit was required notwithstanding the fact that Bell :

had obtained a building permit at the time that the

original billboard had been constructed on Lot 26A.

During the first week of June 1984, Bell also began to

reconstruct the billboard which had been improperly torn

down by the DOT on Lot 8. Stafford’s construction code

official, Robert Mears (Mears), ordered Bell to stop work

on this billboard until he obtained a building permit.

Stafford then filed a second suit and the same judge

again determined that a building permit was required in

order to reconstruct the billboard on Lot 8.

As a result of that litigation, Bell filed applications for

building permits on Lots 26A and 8. In the meantime,

Stafford had amended its Ordinance 77-22, which had

regulated the use of billboards in the Township, by

passing Ordinance No. 84-35,' which sought to prohibit

ail billboards for off-premises advertising within any

zoning district of the Township. On July 2, 1984 Bell

received written notices denying his application for

building permits on Lots 26A and 8 and his application

to relocate the billboard from Block 181, Lot 4 to Block

158A, Lots 114 and 119. Among other reasons, the

applications purportedly were denied because billboards

were prohibited under Ordinance 84-35 within any zoning

district of the municipality.

Thereafter, Bell filed the instant complaint in lieu of

prerogative writs against Stafford seeking a declaratory

judgment that Ordinance 84-35 was inapplicable to him;

‘Ordinance No. 84-35 was subsequently amended by Ordinance No.

85-68 for the purpose of curing certain publication defects in 84-35

and also to incorporate 84-35 into the overall municipal zoning

ordinance. For purposes of simplicity and clarity we will refer to the

ordinance in question as 84-35.

137a

Opinion—April 13, 1987.

that he had the right to repair and re-erect the billboards

on Lots 26A and 8, to relocate the billboard from Block

181 to Block 158A as a nonconforming use under the

original ordinance; that Stafford be ordered to issue the

necessary building permits; that Ordinance 84-35 was

unconstitutional on its face and that Ordinance 84-35

was null and void for failure to properly publish its

adoption pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:49-2.

The matter was tried before a second judge who held

that Ordinance 84-35 was constitutionally valid and

legally adopted and that Bell could not legally re-erect a

billboard on Lot 26A, or relocate the billboard from

Block 181 to Block 158. However, he also held that the

“negligence or wrongdoing’”’ of the DOT in cutting down

the billboard on Lot 8 was “‘imputed”’ to Stafford and

that Bell was therefore entitled to re-erect a billboard on

that lot as a nonconforming use.

As previously noted, we deem it necessary to address

only the issue of the constitutionality of the ordinance in

question because we are satisfied that it is facially

invalid rendering moot the remaining issues raised by

the parties.

Section 2 of Stafford Ordinance No. 84-35 provides:

Billboards - Billboards, signboards and off-premises

advertising signs and devices are prohibited within

any zoning district of the Township.

The trial judge ruled this ordinance to be constitutional.

In so doing he stated:

I’m satisfied on the Constitutional argument that

the present ordinance does meet the requirements of

the Constitutional provisions in that it is a general

138a

Opinion—April 13, 1987.

ban on a particular form, really a business, rather

than of a speech. The use of off-site advertising is

an area which can certainly be regulated by a

Township and its an area which they have chosen to

regulate by disallowance. That, I believe, meets the

Constitutional test; therefore, the fact that the

billboards were from time to time used for political

purposes, does not somehow convert them into, or

raise them to a constitutional level. Its sort of like

saying that that gas station we were talking about,

that’s a non-conforming use, was plastered up with

Vote Republican signs, and therefore had some right

to continue, be restored because it was utilized for

political advertising as opposed to commercial.

Bell contends that the trial court erred in so ruling

since the ordinance constitutes a total prohibition

against billboar

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.