Case Title: Mount Laurel Township v. MiPro Homes, L.L.C.

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-85-05

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A-85/ 86 September Term 2005 MOUNT LAUREL TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MIPRO HOMES, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellant, and LORRAINE C. ELBON and 190 ELBO, L.L.C., Defendants, and BUILDERS LEAGUE OF SOUTH JERSEY, INC., a New Jersey non-profit corporation, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. Argued May 1, 2006 Decided December 7, 2006 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 379 N.J. Super. 358 (2005). Jeffrey I. Baron argued the cause for appellant (Baron & Riefberg, attorneys; Mr. Baron and Barbara E. Riefberg, on the briefs). Robert M. Washburn argued the cause for intervenor-appellant (Flaster/Greenberg, attorneys; Mr. Washburn and Vincent J. Nolan, III, of counsel and on the briefs). Michael L. Mouber argued the cause for respondent. Jeffrey N. Rabin, Assistant County Solicitor, argued the cause for amicus curiae Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington (Evan H.C. Crook, Burlington County Solicitor, attorney). Thomas W. Dunn argued the cause for amici curiae The New Jersey State League of Municipalities and New Jersey Institute of Local Government Attorneys (Beattie Padovano and William John Kearns, Jr., General Counsel attorneys). Rachel J. Horowitz, Deputy Attorney General, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae State of New Jersey (Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel). Meryl A.G. Gonchar submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Builders Association (Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, attorneys; Mr. Gonchar, Dean A. Gaver and Steven Firkser, of counsel and on the brief). Robert J. Assuncao submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae National Association of Home Builders (DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, attorneys). PER CURIAM We affirm the holding of the Appellate Division for the reasons expressed by Judge Skillman in his thoughtful and well-written opinion. We recognize, as did the panel below, that the citizens of New Jersey have expressed a strong and sustained public interest in the acquisition and preservation of open space. The Appellate Division points to the numerous statutes enacted in the 1960s and 70s, and even more recently in the 1990s, authorizing loans and grants to expand the State s Green Acres Program. Most pertinent here, various of those statutes provide municipalities with the power of eminent domain to acquire land for recreation and conservation purposes. Mt. Laurel Twp. v. MiPro Homes, L.L.C., 379 N.J. Super. 358, 371-372 (App. Div. 2005) (citing New Jersey s Green Acres statutes, N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 to -55, authorizing state and local governments to acquire land for recreation and conservation purposes). Even more telling, New Jersey residents have voted repeatedly for the issuance of state and county bonds to provide funding for open space acquisition. That Mount Laurel Township sought to limit development, thereby to limit the overcrowded schools, traffic congestion and pollution that accompanies development, does not alter our disposition of this case. The town s motive is not inconsistent with the motive driving the public interest in open space acquisition generally. See N.J. Dep t of Envtl. Prot., Smart Growth, at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/antisprawl/ (last modified Nov. 14, 2005) (stating that New Jersey is the nation s most densely populated state, and the most developed and that [i]ll-conceived land use and poorly designed development threatens our vital drinking-water supplies, devours our open space, spoils our landscape and creates traffic congestion that pollutes our air. ). Finally, we note that on remand and the appointment of condemnation commissioners, the property will be valued at its fair market value, including value associated with MiPro s final subdivision approval obtained twenty-two days before the filing of the declaration of taking. Cf. State ex rel. Commissioner of Trans. v. Caoli, 135 N.J. 252, 268 (1994) (stating that potential subdivision is a highly material factor bearing on the optimum use of the property and its fair market value. ). CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, and WALLACE join in this opinion. JUSTICE RIVERA-SOTO filed a separate dissenting opinion. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MIPRO HOMES, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellant, and LORRAINE C. ELBON and 190 ELBO, L.L.C., Defendants, and BUILDERS LEAGUE OF SOUTH JERSEY, INC., a New Jersey non-profit corporation, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. JUSTICE RIVERA-SOTO, dissenting. I disagree with the majority s holding in two fundamental respects. First, I conclude, much as the trial court did, that this case presents an improper exercise of the power of eminent domain. Second, although the majority attempts to lighten the effect of its ruling by adding to the quantum of damages to which MiPro Homes, L.L.C. (MiPro) is entitled as a result of the condemnation proceedings instituted by Mount Laurel Township (Township), the majority simply does not go far enough. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-85/86 SEPTEMBER TERM 2005 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court MOUNT LAUREL TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MIPRO HOMES, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellant, And LORRAINE C. ELBON and 190 ELBO, L.L.C., Defendants, And BUILDERS LEAGUE OF SOUTH JERSEY, INC., a New Jersey Non-profit corporation, Defendant-Intervenor- Appellant. DECIDED December 7, 2006 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Per Curiam CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY Justice Rivera-Soto