Enforcement of Mount Laurel Doctrine: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Builder’s Remedy in Toll Brothers v. Township of West Windsor

Enforcement of Mount Laurel Doctrine: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Builder’s Remedy in Toll Brothers v. Township of West Windsor

Introduction

The landmark case Toll Brothers, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Township of West Windsor addressed critical issues surrounding the Mount Laurel Doctrine in New Jersey. Decided on August 1, 2002, by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, this case revisited the obligations of municipalities to provide affordable housing and the mechanisms available to enforce these obligations through the builder's remedy. The plaintiff, Toll Brothers, a prominent homebuilder, challenged the Township of West Windsor's zoning ordinances, alleging that they constituted exclusionary zoning practices that violated both the New Jersey Constitution and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) of New Jersey.

Summary of the Judgment

In this second round of Mount Laurel litigation, Toll Brothers contended that West Windsor failed to provide a realistic opportunity for the development of affordable housing, thereby infringing upon constitutional mandates. The Superior Court initially ruled in favor of Toll Brothers, determining that West Windsor's zoning policies were exclusionary and awarded a builder's remedy to Toll Brothers. This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division in 2000. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which upheld the lower courts' decisions, thereby reinforcing the validity of the builder's remedy as a tool to enforce affordable housing obligations under the Mount Laurel Doctrine.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references foundational Mount Laurel cases:

  • Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel Township, 67 N.J. 151 (1975) - Established the obligation for municipalities to provide affordable housing.
  • Mount Laurel II, 92 N.J. 158 (1983) - Reinforced and clarified the constitutional mandate, introducing the builder's remedy.
  • Madison, supra, 72 N.J. 481 (1977) - Created the builder's remedy to incentivize private developers to comply with affordable housing obligations.
  • HOLMDEL BUILDERS ASS'N v. TOWNSHIP OF HOLMDEL, 121 N.J. 550 (1990) - Highlighted municipalities' frequent non-compliance with Mount Laurel mandates.
  • Hills Development Co. v. Bernards Township, 103 N.J. 1 (1986) - Upheld the constitutionality of the FHA, which codified the Mount Laurel Doctrine.
Additionally, the case cites various regulations from the Fair Housing Act and the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), which play pivotal roles in overseeing and implementing affordable housing policies in New Jersey.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in affirming the lower courts' decisions, underscored that West Windsor's zoning ordinances were overly reliant on multi-family housing units, a type for which there was minimal market demand in the area. This over-reliance effectively hampered the development of affordable housing, as developers found little incentive to pursue projects under restrictive zoning that did not align with market preferences. Key points in the court's reasoning include:

  • Market Demand Consideration: The court held that evaluating market demand for specific housing types is essential in determining the realistic opportunity for affordable housing development. West Windsor's focus on multi-family units, despite low demand, did not satisfy this requirement.
  • Sewer Policies: West Windsor's stringent sewer construction and financing requirements were deemed excessively cost-generative, further discouraging developers from undertaking affordable housing projects.
  • Assemblage Issues: The necessity for land assemblage across multiple ownerships posed significant barriers to development, making it unrealistic to expect affordable housing projects to proceed without substantial modifications.
  • Environmental Constraints: Environmental regulations imposed additional limitations on the developability of inclusionary sites, compounding the challenges faced by developers.
The court emphasized that municipalities must actively eliminate barriers and adopt zoning practices conducive to affordable housing to comply with Mount Laurel obligations.

Impact

The affirmation of the builder's remedy in this case reinforces the judiciary's role in enforcing affordable housing mandates under the Mount Laurel Doctrine. Key impacts include:

  • Strengthened Enforcement Mechanism: Upholding the builder's remedy provides a crucial tool for developers to seek judicial intervention when municipalities fail to comply with affordable housing obligations.
  • Municipal Zoning Reforms: Municipalities are now further incentivized to align their zoning ordinances with market demands and constitutional requirements to avoid litigation and the ensuing remedies.
  • Guidance for Future Litigation: The judgment offers a clear precedent for evaluating the adequacy of inclusionary zoning practices, emphasizing the necessity of considering market feasibility and eliminating exclusionary barriers.
  • Role of COAH: The case underscores the importance of COAH's regulatory framework in determining fair share obligations, although the builder's remedy remains essential for municipalities not engaging with COAH processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mount Laurel Doctrine

A New Jersey constitutional requirement mandating municipalities to provide a realistic opportunity for the development of affordable housing. It aims to prevent exclusionary zoning practices that discriminate against low and moderate-income households.

Exclusionary Zoning

Land use regulations that effectively prevent the construction of affordable housing, thereby excluding lower-income individuals from residing in certain areas.

Builder's Remedy

A judicially created mechanism that allows developers to seek court approval to construct affordable housing when municipalities fail to meet their Mount Laurel obligations. It serves as an incentive for private developers to participate in affordable housing efforts.

Council on Affordable Housing (COAH)

An administrative agency established under the Fair Housing Act of New Jersey to oversee the development of affordable housing. COAH reviews and mediates Mount Laurel disputes, provides substantive certifications to municipalities, and sets fair share housing obligations.

Fair Share Housing Obligation

The mandated number of affordable housing units that each municipality is required to provide to meet regional housing needs, as determined by COAH.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of New Jersey's affirmation in Toll Brothers v. Township of West Windsor marks a significant reinforcement of the Mount Laurel Doctrine's enforcement mechanisms. By upholding the builder's remedy, the court ensures that municipalities remain accountable for providing affordable housing and are compelled to align their zoning practices with both constitutional mandates and market realities. This decision not only aids in the immediate resolution of Toll Brothers' claims but also sets a robust precedent for future cases, promoting the continued pursuit of inclusive and equitable housing policies across New Jersey. Municipalities are thus reminded of their enduring obligation to foster environments where affordable housing can thrive, thereby advancing the broader societal goal of inclusive growth and diversity.

Case Details

Year: 2002
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Judge(s)

STEIN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Attorney(S)

Karen L. Cayci and Michael J. Herbert argued the cause for appellants Township of West Windsor and Mayor and Council of the Township of West Windsor (Herbert, Van Ness, Cayci Goodell, attorneys). Gerald J. Muller argued the cause for appellant Planning Board of the Township of West Windsor (Miller, Porter Muller, attorneys). Carl S. Bisgaier and Henry A. Hill, Jr. argued the cause for respondent (Hill Wallack and Flaster Greenberg Wallenstien Roderick Zuckerman Skinner Kirchner, attorneys; Mr. Hill and Kenneth E. Meiser, on the briefs). Howard D. Cohen argued the cause for amicus curiae American Planning Association and its New Jersey Chapter (Stern Greenberg Kilcullen, attorneys). Edwin W. Schmierer argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey State League of Municipalities (Mason, Griffin Pierson, attorneys; Trishka Waterbury, on the brief). Peter J. O'Connor argued the cause for amici curiae Southern Burlington County NAACP, Camden County NAACP and Fair Share Housing Development (Mr. O'Connor, attorney; Mr. O'Connor and Kevin D. Walsh, on the brief). John M. Payne argued the cause for amici curiae Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, Coalition for Affordable Housing and the Environment, Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, Regional Planning Partnership and New Jersey Future (Ann Alexander, Acting Director, Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, attorney; Mr. Payne and Susan J. Kraham, on the brief)

Comments