AMG Realty Co. v. Township of Warren

504 A.2d 692, 207 N.J. Super. 388, 1984 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1387
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedJuly 16, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 504 A.2d 692 (AMG Realty Co. v. Township of Warren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
AMG Realty Co. v. Township of Warren, 504 A.2d 692, 207 N.J. Super. 388, 1984 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1387 (N.J. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

[392]*392Outline of Opinion

Introduction 393

I. Fair Share 397

A. Fair Share Methodology 398

1. Region 398
2. Regional Need 400

a. Present Need 401

b. Prospective Need 403

3. Allocation Factors 404

a. Present Need 404

b. Prospective Need 405

B. Application of the Fair Share Methodology To Warren Township 410

1. Region 410
2. Regional Need 410
3. Allocation Factors 410

a. Present Need 410

b. Prospective Need ■ 411

C. Justification of Methodology 412

1. Region 412
2. Regional Need 420

a. Present Need 420

b. Prospective Need 425

c. Present and Prospective Need 428

3. Allocation Factors 431

a. Present Need 431

(1) Growth Area 431

(2) Present Employment 433

(3) Median Income 434

b. Prospective Need Factors 439

(1) Applicability of the Three Present Need Factors 439

(2) Employment Growth ' 440

II. Compliance 443

III. Builder’s Remedy 447

IV. Conclusion 450

Appendix

A. Present Housing Need Regions 459

B. Present Need Calculation 460

C. Surplus Present Need Data 464

D. Prospective Need Data 514

E. Selected Urban Aid Municipalities 537

F. Warren Township Commutershed Region 538

SERPENTELLI, J.S.C.

This Mount Laurel case, the first to be fully tried since the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Southern Burlington Cty. N.A.A.C.P. v. Mt. Laurel Tp., 92 N.J. 158 (1983) (hereinafter Mount Laurel II) presents the court with the opportunity to start the process of developing a method of fair share allocation and eliminating the confusion surrounding the issue. The process is critical to the implementation of the Mount Laurel principle because as long as uncertainty regarding the fair share obligation prevails, “the weakness of the constitutional doctrine will continue”. Id. at 253. The development of a fair share methodology constitutes a primary step in achieving the ultimate goal of Mount Laurel II — the actual construction of low and moderate income housing. Id. at 352. Only after the court quantifies the fair share obligation can it determine whether the municipal ordinance fully complies with Mount Laurel and thereafter whether the plaintiff is entitled to a builder’s remedy.

Therefore, this opinion will address three issues in the following order:

I. Fair Share — What number of low and moderate income units of the regional need must Warren provide for through its land use regulations?
II. Compliance — Has Warren, through its present land use regulations, provided a realistic opportunity for the construction of its fair share and thereby satisfied its Mount Laurel obligation?
III. Builder’s Remedy — -Have plaintiffs demonstrated noncompliance, proposed a substantial lower income component for the project and can their plans be implemented without significant negative environmental or planning impact?

Based upon my analysis of the evidence, I hold that Warren Township has a fair share obligation of 946 dwelling units, for the decade of 1980-1990, that the township’s land use ordinances do not comply with Mount Laurel II and that plaintiffs are entitled to a builder’s remedy.

The opinion has the following structure. With respect to fair share, I will initially detail the methodology adopted before demonstrating how it produces Warren’s obligation. This ex[394]*394planation and application should enable any municipality affected by the methodology to understand the mechanics of it so that it can precisely identify its own. obligation. Next, the opinion will elaborate on the justifications for the approach, the criticisms which have been voiced by others and any shortcomings the court perceives. This should facilitate refinement of the methodology. With respect to the compliance issue, the court will examine Warren’s land use regulations to explain why they fail to make realistically possible the satisfaction of the township’s fair share and identify some of the areas which should be addressed in the revision process. With respect to the builder’s remedy, the court shall review the evidence which demonstrates that plaintiffs are entitled to the builder’s remedy. Finally, the conclusion will explore the broader ramifications of this opinion.

Before proceeding to a discussion of each of these three issues, some background information is necessary. The trial began on January 3, 1984. Shortly after testimony commenced, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations.. It appeared that the matter could be resolved if the township obtained a determination of its fair share and a declaration of compliance of its ordinances, which would provide it with repose from Mount Laurel litigation for a period of six years. Id. at 291-292. The court emphasized that it would only grant repose in a nonadversarial setting if defendant demonstrated to a court appointed master and then to the court, that the method used to calculate the fair share was reasonable.

As a first step, counsel authorized their planning experts to discuss an appropriate methodology for identifying Warren’s fair share. Each of the experts had filed a report with the court setting forth their respective fair share analysis. Each of the experts possessed copies of expert reports filed by other court appointed experts in other pending Mount Laurel litigation. The consultants and the court had received the recently issued report of the Center for Urban Policy Research of Rutgers University, (hereinafter CUPR), entitled “Mount Lau[395]*395reí II — Challenge and Delivery of Low-Cost Housing.” During the process of discussions the consultants were given permission to confer freely with other recognized authorities in the field and individuals who have been involved in Mount Laurel litigation.

There evolved from the efforts of the experts a document which has become known as the “Warren Report.” The planners developed a fair share allocation method applicable not only to the Warren Township case, but also, in their view, to municipalities throughout the State. Based upon the agreement of the planners, the parties were able to arrive at a fair share number for Warren and to resolve the other issues involved in the case including builder’s remedies.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Township of South Brunswick
153 A.3d 981 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2016)
In Re Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed by Various
141 A.3d 359 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2016)
In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:94
914 A.2d 348 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2007)
TOLL BROS, INC. v. Tp. of West Windsor
803 A.2d 53 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2002)
Zilinsky v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of Verona
521 A.2d 841 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1987)
AMG Realty Co. v. Warren Tp.
504 A.2d 692 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
504 A.2d 692, 207 N.J. Super. 388, 1984 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amg-realty-co-v-township-of-warren-njsuperctappdiv-1984.