Opinion
Submitted April 12, 1989.
Decided May 1, 1989.
On appeal from the Tax Court.
Harvey C. Johnson, attorney for appellant B.P.U.M. Development and Urban Renewal Corporation ( David E. Mapp, on the brief).
Patricia A. Darden, attorney for appellant City of Camden ( Marcia R. Steinbock, on the brief).
Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Attorney General, attorney for respondent ( Harry Haushalter, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Wiley, Malehorn and Sirota, attorneys for Town of Morristown, amicus curiae ( Robert Goldsmith and Robert G. Lavitt, on the brief; Robert Goldsmith, of counsel).
Before Judges GAULKIN and ARNOLD M. STEIN.
Substantially for the reasons expressed in his opinion reported at 9 N.J. Tax. 490 (1988), we conclude that Judge Lario correctly held (1) that both the Urban Renewal Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55C-40 et seq.) and the Tax Abatement Law (N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.95 et seq.) require "the acceptance and execution of appropriate agreements as a precondition for an eligible project to receive tax abatement" and (2) that "there exists no equitable reason to waive the statutory prerequisites." B.P.U.M. Dev. Urb. Renewal v. Camden, 9 N.J. Tax. at 502-503 , 507.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed.