Assembly Passes Bill To Allow Removal of Age-Restrictions From Approved Development

On Thursday, the Assembly passed A-3772, a bill which allows developers to apply to local land use boards to remove age-restrictions on previously approved developments.  This bill encorporates the changes suggested in Governor Corzine’s conditional veto of an earlier version of the bill, including a mandatory 20 percent affordable housing requirement and a requirement that an applicant demonstrate that the conversion can be granted “without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impare the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.”  

The revised bill also provides a shorter than normal timeframe for appeals.  An appeal of a denial of a conversion must be filed within 30 days of receipt of the resolution of memorialization.  This differs from typical prerogative writ actions which require an appeal of a land use decision to be filed within 45 days of publication of the determination in an official newspaper of the municipality.

According to the Star Ledger:

Developers seeking the conversion would apply to the an local planning or zoning board that granted the initial approval.

Amendments recommended by Gov. Jon Corzine and approved by the Senate last week and the Assembly Thursday, give local officials more latitude to deny an application for conversion, require developers to dedicate 20 percent of homes for low- and moderate-income residents, and allow the courts to review local board decisions.

Having cleared both houses, the bill now moves to the Governor’s desk for approval.   For the full Star Ledger article, click here.

NJ Supreme Court Says Municipalities Can’t Force Developers To Contribute Open Space or Payments In Lieu

In New Jersey Shore Builders Assn. v. Twp of Jackson ___, N.J.  ___ (June 25, 2009), the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law (“MLUL”) does not authorize municipalities to require, as part of  the development approval process, that developers set aside land as recreational or open space within a proposed development as a condition of approval, unless that development is a “planned unit development” as defined within the MLUL.  The Court further held that contributions or payments in lieu of providing the required recreational or open space are also not authorized by the MLUL.

According to the Star Ledger, the decision:

puts an end to local ordinances that required builders to pay for open space or include it when trying to construct large residential subdivisions.

In its unanimous decision, the court said that while the towns’ goal to preserve open space “is certainly a laudable one,” the state’s Municipal Land Use Law does not allow it.

The court said the state law only allows towns to force developers to build open space in “planned unit developments” – or communities intentionally constructed with both homes and parks as part of a land parcel.

William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said the state law should be changed to preserve towns’ efforts to raise money for open space.

“The court has made it clear that a legislative solution will be necessary,” Dressel said. “We will immediately contact the Legislature on a legislative remedy.”

Dressel said he did not know how many towns had the laws but said he suspects “there are many.”

For the full Star Ledger article, click here.

For the Appellate Division opinion, click here.

Eminent Domain Compromise Bill Getting Traction in Senate

According to a report at NJBIZ.com and Trenton sources, a compromise bill on eminent domain reform is making its way through the State Senate and may clear the upper house this week:

From NJBIZ:

State Senate majority leader Steve Sweeney (D-West Deptford) and state Sen. Ronald Rice (D-Newark) last week unveiled amendments to their merged eminent domain legislation, SCS-559/757. The proposed amendments would establish tougher eminent domain standards by limiting the use of eminent domain and tightening the definition of a property in need of redevelopment — such as adding a 20 percent cap on nonblighted areas within designated redevelopment areas.

The changes would improve notice provisions for property owners and tenants affected by eminent domain, and significantly increase the financial compensation to parties displaced during the process. Businesses, for example, would receive payment for the loss of a location with heavy foot traffic and for capital improvements that were done at the site.

The revised bill also would demand more transparency during the redevelopment process, and require that a municipality or redevelopment agency exercise the power of eminent domain within five years of adopting a redevelopment plan.

For the full article, click here.

Senate Passes Revised Bill To Allow Developers To Request Relief From Age-Restrictions on Stagnant 55+ Development Projects

The state Senate has passed a new version of a bill that allows developers to challenge age restrictions on pending developments.  This bill is in response to Governor Corzine’s veto of an earlier version.  The new bill incorporates the changes expressed in the statement accompanying the Governor’s veto.

According to the Star Ledger:

The bill (S-2577), which passed 21-13, allows developers to ask municipalities to reconsider projects that had been approved as senior housing. If the towns don’t open up the buyer pool, developers can take their case to court.

The bill only applies to projects that have not started construction nor sold a unit.  Supporters say this is strictly an economic issue – it’s a type of stimulus to help builders, who have been hit hard by the recession and housing crash, to start working again.  Builders are reluctant to break ground on further senior housing projects because the market has become so overbuilt.

Using statistics from Otteau Valuation Group, builders say there is a 16-year supply in senior housing. That means it will take 16 years to get to a healthy market level of a six-month supply, taking into account all the houses on the market now and all those that are in the pipeline.

The bill had faced opposition from towns that feared losing control over the process and senators who felt it was unfair to allow courts to reverse communities’ decisions.

“This is like a back-door grab for power,” said Sen. Shirley Turner (D-Mercer).

The state’s largest builder, K. Hovnanian, is considering taking some of its planned senior communities in central and southern New Jersey back to towns and trying to get restrictions lifted.