B.P.U.M. DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT; CITY OF CAMDEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT

PER CURIAM.

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.