456 A.2d 390 (N.J. 1983)
In 1975 the Supreme Court decided Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. 151 (Mount Laurel I), and remanded the matter with instructions that Mount Laurel adopt a revised zoning ordinance within ninety days.1 Mount Laurel adopted a revised ordinance in April 1976 that added three new zones, R-5, R-6, and R-7, comprising less than one-fourth of one percent of its land area.2 Plaintiffs challenged the revised ordinance at trial.3 The trial court upheld it as a bona fide compliance effort but granted a builder's remedy to intervenor Davis Enterprises for mobile-home development.4
The present appeal consolidates six cases.5 Caputo v. Township of Chester arose when two resident landowners sued after Chester's 1976 rezoning failed to satisfy their request for higher-density residential zoning.6 The trial court invalidated the ordinance but denied a builder's remedy.7 Glenview Development Co. v. Franklin Township involved a developer's challenge to Franklin's ordinance on the ground that the rural Hunterdon County township was not a developing municipality.8 Round Valley, Inc. v. Township of Clinton produced a trial-court judgment invalidating Clinton's ordinance and appointing a master, which the Appellate Division reversed in part.9 Urban League of Essex Co. v. Mahwah challenged Mahwah's provision for least-cost housing priced at seventy thousand dollars and above.10 Urban League of Greater New Brunswick v. Carteret attacked the zoning ordinances of twenty-three Middlesex County municipalities, resulting in a trial-court allocation of 18,697 units of regional need among eleven municipalities.11
Mount Laurel Township had a 1980 population of 17,614 and added 1,300,000 square feet of industrial space and 700,000 square feet of office space between 1970 and 1977 while constructing 2,784 new housing units, all priced beyond the reach of lower-income families.12 The three new zones were each owned by a single individual.13 R-5 was isolated industrial land subject to flooding and lacking utilities.14 R-6 contained serious drainage problems and could accommodate only about thirty units.15 R-7 merely waived restrictions within an existing planned-unit development whose developer had no plans to build lower-income units.16 Mount Laurel calculated its fair share as 515 units using a formula based solely on the proportion of vacant developable land.17
Chester Township in Morris County had a 1980 population of 5,198, 58 percent undeveloped land, substantial prime agricultural land, and watershed areas.18 Its 1976 ordinance limited most residential development to two- or five-acre lots.19 Franklin Township in Hunterdon County had a 1980 population of 2,294, 76 percent of its land under farmland assessment, and a zoning ordinance permitting only single-family homes on three- or five-acre lots.20 Clinton Township had a 1980 population of 7,345 and an ordinance that effectively prohibited multi-family housing.21 Mahwah in Bergen County had a 1980 population of 12,130 and zoning that permitted multi-family housing only at prices starting at seventy thousand dollars.22
The State Development Guide Plan, promulgated in May 1980 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.52, divides the state into growth, limited-growth, agricultural, conservation, Pinelands, and coastal zones and has been used by the Division of State and Regional Planning to review major subdivisions and federal-aid applications.23 All six cases reached the Supreme Court through direct certification or appeals from Appellate Division reversals.24 Arguments were heard in October and December 1980.25
Whether the Mount Laurel obligation to provide a realistic opportunity for low and moderate income housing applies only to developing municipalities or extends to municipalities containing growth areas designated by the State Development Guide Plan?26
The constitutional obligation to exercise the zoning power for the general welfare requires every municipality to provide a realistic opportunity for its fair share of the region's present and prospective need for low and moderate income housing.27 This obligation extends to all municipalities containing growth areas as designated by the State Development Guide Plan.28
Yes. The facts of the case begin with the 1975 Mount Laurel I decision that invalidated Mount Laurel's zoning ordinance and remanded for revision within ninety days.29 Mount Laurel adopted a 1976 revised ordinance adding three small zones comprising less than one-fourth of one percent of its land.30 Plaintiffs challenged the ordinance at trial.31
The court upheld it as a bona fide effort but granted a builder's remedy to Davis Enterprises.32 The Supreme Court consolidated this appeal with five others involving Chester, Franklin, Clinton, Mahwah, and Carteret.33 All reached the Court by 1980 through direct certification or appeals from Appellate Division reversals.34 In each case the record showed large-lot or cost-generating restrictions that prevented lower income housing despite population growth and industrial expansion in the defendant municipalities.35
The Court applied the rule to the specific facts of Mount Laurel Township, which the SDGP designates as containing growth areas, and to Chester and Franklin Townships, which the SDGP classifies as limited growth or agricultural.36 It held that only growth-area municipalities incur the prospective fair share obligation while all municipalities must still address their indigenous present need.37
The Mount Laurel obligation applies to every municipality containing growth areas designated by the State Development Guide Plan rather than being limited to developing municipalities.38
Whether a municipality satisfies its Mount Laurel obligation through a bona fide attempt to remove exclusionary barriers or must in fact provide a realistic opportunity measured against its fair share of regional need?39
Yes. The Court applied the rule to the facts of Mount Laurel's 1976 ordinance.43 That ordinance added three zones owned by single individuals and calculated a fair share of only 515 units using a vacant-land formula.44 The ordinance failed to create any realistic opportunity because no lower income units had been built in eight years and the zones were unsuitable or illusory.45
The same objective test was applied to Mahwah's least-cost zones priced at seventy thousand dollars and above and to the Middlesex County allocations.46 It required precise numerical fair share determinations rather than numberless resolutions.47
Whether affirmative inclusionary zoning measures such as density bonuses and mandatory set-asides are constitutionally required when removal of restrictive barriers alone fails to create a realistic opportunity for lower income housing?50
When removal of restrictive barriers alone will not afford a realistic opportunity for the construction of a municipality's fair share of lower income housing, affirmative inclusionary devices are required.51 These include density bonuses and mandatory set-asides.52 They are constitutionally required and within the zoning power.53
Yes. The Court applied the rule to the facts of Mount Laurel's three new zones and Mahwah's multi-family provisions.54 Those provisions permitted but did not require lower income units and allowed more profitable market-rate housing on the same land.55 It held that affirmative measures such as mandatory set-asides and cooperation with subsidy programs are necessary to make the opportunity realistic rather than theoretical.56
Affirmative inclusionary zoning measures are constitutionally required when removal of restrictive barriers alone fails to create a realistic opportunity for lower income housing.57
Whether builder's remedies must be granted to plaintiff-developers who succeed in Mount Laurel litigation when their projects include a substantial portion of lower income housing and conform to sound planning principles?58
Where a plaintiff-developer succeeds in Mount Laurel litigation and proposes a project that includes a substantial portion of lower income housing, a builder's remedy must be granted.59 The project must conform to sound land use planning principles.60 The municipality may establish that the project is clearly contrary to sound planning or environmental concerns.61
Yes. The Court applied the rule to the facts of Davis Enterprises' mobile-home proposal in Mount Laurel.62 That proposal committed twenty percent of units to lower income occupancy and satisfied environmental standards.63 It granted the remedy after ten years of litigation.64 The Court also applied the rule to Round Valley's project in Clinton.65 It conditioned any remedy on actual production of lower income units rather than least-cost housing alone.66
Builder's remedies must be granted to successful plaintiff-developers whose projects include a substantial portion of lower income housing and conform to sound planning principles.67
Whether trial courts may appoint special masters to assist municipalities in revising zoning ordinances after a finding of Mount Laurel noncompliance?68
Yes. The Court applied the rule to the facts of the Clinton and Mount Laurel cases.72 The trial court had appointed a master to supervise ordinance revision after invalidation.73 It approved the appointment as a readily available and desirable device that aids all parties without improperly delegating judicial power, provided the court independently determines compliance.74
Trial courts may appoint special masters to assist municipalities in revising zoning ordinances after a finding of Mount Laurel noncompliance.75
Whether the Mount Laurel obligation extends to fully developed municipalities and to areas designated as limited growth, agricultural, or conservation under the State Development Guide Plan?76
The Mount Laurel obligation to address indigenous present need extends to every municipality, including fully developed ones.77 The prospective fair share obligation does not extend to areas the State Development Guide Plan designates as limited growth, agricultural, conservation, Pinelands, or coastal zones where growth is discouraged.78
No. The Court applied the rule to the facts of Chester and Franklin Townships.79 Those townships were classified by the SDGP as limited growth and agricultural.80 It held that they incur no prospective obligation.81 The Court also applied the rule to fully developed municipalities generally.82 It noted that the obligation to meet indigenous present need remains but must be accommodated with legitimate planning objectives.83
The Mount Laurel prospective obligation does not extend to limited growth, agricultural, or conservation areas under the State Development Guide Plan, although the obligation to address indigenous present need applies to all municipalities including fully developed ones.84