Opinion ID: 1901249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Determining the Mount Laurel Obligation: Use of the State Development Guide Plan

Text: The initial question in every Mount Laurel case is whether the municipality is subject to the Mount Laurel obligation. In its initial formulation in Mount Laurel I, this Court described the characteristics of Mount Laurel, implying that any municipality with similar characteristics would have the obligation announced in that opinion. Mount Laurel I, 67 N.J. at 160. Those municipalities are referred to as developing municipalities. Id. at 190. All subsequent litigation concerning the doctrine treated this preliminary determination as a condition precedent to its applicability (although there were pointed disagreements suggesting the developing-developed distinction inequitable, e.g., Pascack, 74 N.J. at 494-95 (Schreiber, J., concurring)), and the particular factors descriptive of Mount Laurel set forth in that opinion became fixed as the six criteria of a developing municipality: A developing municipality (1) has a sizeable land area, (2) lies outside the central cities and older built-up suburbs, (3) has substantially shed rural characteristics, (4) has undergone great population increase since World War II or is now in the process of doing so, (5) is not completely developed and (6) is in the path of inevitable future residential, commercial and industrial demand and growth. [ Glenview Development Co., 164 N.J. Super. at 567-68]. These criteria are discussed as if each must be satisfied in order for a municipality to be developing. There are various drawbacks to this approach to the critical question of determining the existence of the obligation. Uncertainty is one of them. Ideally a municipality, and its governing body, should know without question whether it is subject to the Mount Laurel remedy, for without that knowledge municipalities that are borderline (between developing and non-developing) cannot be expected to comply with an obligation that may very well not exist. Given the foreseeable political pressures, governing bodies in that situation are almost certain to take the position either that the constitutional remedy or obligation does not apply, or that if it does apply, it has not been violated, or that their responsibility to the municipality and its residents requires that the issues be determined in litigation. Of at least equal importance, the criteria will not necessarily result in the imposition of the obligation in accordance with sound planning. There may be areas that fit the developing description that should not yield to inevitable future residential, commercial and industrial demand and growth. Those areas may contain prime agricultural land, open spaces and areas of scenic beauty; apart from these their development might impose unacceptable demands on public investment to extend the infrastructure required to support such growth. Indeed, to some extent the very definition of developing suggests results that are quite the opposite of sound planning, for the whole purpose of planning is to prevent or deflect what would otherwise be inevitable. Lacking any official guidance, however, as to the state's plans for its own future, its own determination of where development should occur and where it should not, and what kind of development, this Court fashioned its own remedial planning guide in the form of a definition of developing. It was obvious to anyone who studied the matter that such definition of the Mount Laurel responsibility furnished no guarantee that if lower income housing resulted, it would be built where it should be built, i.e., where a comprehensive plan for the State of New Jersey might indicate such development was desirable. We proceeded in spite of this drawback since, given the constitutional requirement and the lack of any assurance that such a statewide plan would be forthcoming, there appeared no justification for delay. We now have a satisfactory alternative. The State Development Guide Plan (May 1980) promulgated pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.52, provides a statewide blueprint for future development. Its remedial use in Mount Laurel disputes will ensure that the imposition of fair share obligations will coincide with the State's regional planning goals and objectives. The SDGP represents the only official determination of the state's plan for its own future development and growth. It is substantially similar, in concept and approach, to various regional planning documents by other entities, such as the Tri-State Regional Planning Association, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Association, the Regional Plan Association, and the Middlesex, Somerset, Mercer Regional Study Council, Inc., which have the goal of guiding all new development within their planning jurisdictions. The SDGP resulted from an intensive study of all aspects of New Jersey's current growth and development considered in conjunction with the physical assets of the state: its natural resources, open spaces, farmland, infrastructure (transportation, sewage facilities, water supplies and facilities), including the location of present intensive development, employment centers, community facilities, recreation areas, etc. [9] By using proven sound planning concepts the Division of State and Regional Planning, statutorily charged with the obligation ( N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.52), developed a master plan (the SDGP and the Concept Map) for the purpose of guiding the future growth and development of this state. The SDGP divides the state into six basic areas: growth, limited growth, agriculture, conservation, pinelands and coastal zones (the pinelands and coastal zones actually being the product of other protective legislation). [10] While it does not purport to draw its lines so finely as to delineate actual municipal boundaries or specific parcels of land, the concept map, through the county maps, makes it quite clear how every municipality in the state should be classified (see Appendix). By clearly setting forth the state's policy as to where growth should be encouraged and discouraged, these maps effectively serve as a blueprint for the implementation of the Mount Laurel doctrine. Pursuant to the concept map, development (including residential development) is targeted for areas characterized as growth. The Mount Laurel obligation should, as a matter of sound judicial discretion reflecting public policy, be consistent with the state's plan for its future development. Consequently, the obligation should apply in these growth areas, and only in these areas, subject to the exceptions mentioned infra at 240-243. [11] The use of the SDGP for this purpose is consistent with the statute authorizing its preparation and with its actual use by the Legislature, counties, municipalities, the Federal government and the Division of State and Regional Planning within the Department of Community Affairs. The administrators who carried out the legislative requirement to prepare such a plan ... for the future improvement and development of the State, N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.52 a.(2), interpreted the statute to require a plan that would guide and influence the location of future development, including residential development. Channeling the development impetus of the Mount Laurel doctrine into growth areas is precisely the kind of use of the plan that was intended by those who prepared it. The statute requires the Division of State and Regional Planning to [p]romote programs to insure the orderly development of the State's physical assets by ... preparing and maintaining a comprehensive guide plan and long term development and capital improvement program for the future improvement and development of the State.... N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.52(a), (a)(2). The same section of the statute requires the Division to assembl[e] and analyz[e] pertinent facts as to existing development conditions and trends. N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.52(a)(1). The plan is comprehensive, its intent is to guide ... the future ... development of the State, and its purpose of assuring the orderly development of the State's physical assets (land, open spaces, infrastructure  all of the State's natural and man-made physical resources (SDGP at ii)) is to be achieved by, among other things, stimulating, assisting and coordinating local, county and regional planning activities. N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.52(a)(4). [12] The Division of State and Regional Planning completed its Horizon Plan and Ten Million Plan in the 1960's, see SDGP, Preface at 1, and by 1975 was well along in its studies and work aimed at the preparation of the State Development Guide Plan. That work was proceeding through the efforts of the State Planning Task Force started in the early 1970's. In 1975, the Legislature recognized and supported this effort to guide the further development of the state in accordance with that comprehensive guide plan. Presumably with knowledge of the Division's ongoing work in preparing the SDGP, it required all municipalities to consider the relationship of their master plans to the SDGP, each master plan to include a specific policy statement indicating the relationship of the proposed development of the municipality as developed in the master plan to ... [the State Development Guide Plan]. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-28(d). While it did not mandate conformance of the municipal master plan or the development of the municipality to the SDGP, the legislative intent was clear: municipalities were encouraged to guide their development in conformance with the state plan to make it more likely that through voluntary municipal action, the future development of the entire state would be in accordance with comprehensive sound planning. This legislatively mandated use of the SDGP is found in the Municipal Land Use Law, L. 1975, c. 291, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -92, in which the Legislature explicitly recognized the importance of regional planning and the need to integrate each municipality's development with the development of the state as a whole. Among the purposes of the Act are the following: to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this State, to ensure that the development of individual municipalities does not conflict with the development and general welfare of neighboring municipalities, the county and the State as a whole, to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities and regions ..., to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial and industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens, and to promote the conservation of open space and valuable natural resources and to prevent urban sprawl and degradation of the environment through improper use of land. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2. Among the many devices found in the law to achieve these purposes is the municipal master plan. That plan, which must relate to the SDGP, is to guide the use of lands within the municipality. Thus, it is essentially a plan to help determine, control, and provide locations for the municipality's future growth. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-28(a). Among other things, master plans require [a] land use plan element ... showing the existing and proposed location, extent and intensity of development of land to be used in the future for varying types of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, educational and other public and private purposes or combination of purposes, and ... including a statement of the standards of population density and development intensity recommended for the municipality. N.J.S.A. 45:55D-28 b(2). When the Division of State and Regional Planning circulated its first draft of the SDGP in 1977 and then (after broad consultation with citizens throughout the state involved in the planning process, including county and regional planning agencies) released the SDGP in May 1980, it knew that the areas it had carved out of the state and designated for growth, limited growth, conservation, and agricultural would be used by municipalities in determining where development in fact should and should not occur. The SDGP was not only a document that could be used to decide where growth should be encouraged and discouraged, permitted, and prohibited, but a document that the Legislature said must be used for that purpose. And so it has been used by municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law and in many other ways. The primary function of the SDGP is to determine where growth, including residential growth, should be encouraged or discouraged. The State Development Guide Plan is a policy statement about the State's future growth and development. It contains a concept map which shows specially where growth should be either discouraged, encouraged or delayed, and reflects the need to balance conservation areas, agricultural land and water resource imperatives with opportunities for further economic and residential expansion. [SDGP at ii]. Speaking of population and employment projections that indicate that the already-developed pattern of more widespread suburbanization will continue into the 1980's, and noting that this could result in the development of substantial amounts of open land for residential, commercial and industrial uses, the SDGP describes the challenge that it is designed to help meet: A major challenge faced by the people of New Jersey is how to guide this projected growth so that open space and environmental quality are retained while, at the same time, good residential areas are made available, needed employment opportunities are created, and public investments are efficiently utilized and developed. [SDGP at 2]. Housing is one of the major factors discussed in the Plan, along with population distribution and growth, the economy, energy, urban areas, infrastructure, environmental quality and natural resources. The Plan notes that a major challenge in the coming years will be to provide a variety of housing opportunities in appropriate locations for New Jersey's expanding population. SDGP at 7. Referring to the suburbanization process that followed World War II as expensive and wasteful, the Plan notes a need now in New Jersey to alter this unplanned pattern of spread development. A compact development pattern for the future can serve to promote the utilization of the existing infrastructure and service system in an economical way.... It is now suggested that a major portion of the State's development efforts should be directed to areas within and contiguous to existing development. SDGP at 25. One of its growth management strategies advocates a suitable balance between conservation and growth in New Jersey with space for both the conservation of agricultural and critical environmental areas and for residential and economic growth. SDGP at 26. The overall strategy of the Guide Plan is to attain a sharper focus in governmental efforts directed to urban, suburban and open space areas so that the proposed patterns of conservation and development can be realized. SDGP at 80. The strategy is one of discouraging population expansion in Limited Growth Areas, SDGP at 91, to refrain from public investment in growth inducing facilities in Agricultural Areas, SDGP at 90, to utilize acquisitions and regulatory control, the withholding of major public investments for growth-inducing facilities to deter development in conservation areas, SDGP at 87, and to target public investments for new growth-inducing facilities to Growth Areas, and within those areas encourage housing development in proximity to jobs, commercial areas and public transportation, and provide a variety of housing types so that households of varying sizes and incomes can find suitable housing, SDGP at 86, Growth Areas being those parts of the State previously defined as being particularly suitable for development. SDGP at 47. [13] The remedial use by this Court of the SDGP as the primary standard to determine the locus of the Mount Laurel obligation, and consequently to determine where development (in this case housing) should be encouraged and, as importantly, its use to assure that the Mount Laurel doctrine does not encourage development in conflict with the State's comprehensive plan, is thus the kind of use of the SDGP contemplated by the Legislature in various statutes, and by the Plan itself. For instance, it is clear that municipal master plans, pursuant to the statutory mandate, have considered the SDGP; that many seem to view it as a helpful guide; that some conscientiously attempt to conform their proposed development to that suggested in the Plan; that others comply with it out of a concern that needed public funds will not be forthcoming unless they do; and that others simply note their consideration in a pro forma manner. The overriding fact, however, is that the SDGP is being used, to a greater or lesser extent, by municipalities in planning for their future development, and in particular is being used to determine where future development, including housing, should be located by referring to those areas of the SDGP classified as growth areas. While its impact is not clear, the SDGP is being used by the state in commenting on all applications for major subdivisions exceeding either 150 acres or 500 dwelling units. The Municipal Land Use Law requires that the Division of State and Regional Planning be notified of hearings on such applications ( N.J.S.A. 40:55D-12(g)), the Legislature presumably intending that the location of such proposed developments be reviewed by the Division to determine if they conform with sound statewide comprehensive planning  and ultimately if they conform with the comprehensive guide plan that the Legislature required all master plans to consider. The obvious purpose of this provision is to enable the Division to advise local agencies, before they act on such applications, of the relationship of the proposed development to statewide comprehensive planning and of the recommendations of the Division concerning either approval or disapproval, and of the conditions that might be considered in connection with such applications. The Division has used the SDGP as a reference in its review of major subdivisions, SDGP at iii, to evaluate the suitability of major subdivision proposals [of this kind] in order to assess [] major development proposals in terms of statewide priorities and policies ... [and to] shar[e] such assessments with the private sector and local governments concerned, SDGP at 80 (in other words to let the municipality and the proposed developer know of the Division's recommendations concerning the proposed development based on the SDGP). The direction by the Legislature provides a practical support for its declared policy that municipal land use regulations shall be applied in accordance with regional and statewide planning objectives, for it brings the Division of State and Regional Planning and the SDGP directly onto the stage where the development decisions are made. The SDGP is also used by the state and its agencies in reviewing their own functional plans. Some agencies have found the plan useful and have incorporated its major recommendations within their own programs. Some progress has been made, though on an informal basis, toward establishing a unified statewide land use and investment policy. SDGP at iii. The Governor's Office of Policy and Planning, created in 1978, designed to assure that the policies of state departments are complementary and mutually enforcing, has given impetus to the movement toward coordinated comprehensive land use policies. Id. The SDGP is designed to assist the Governor's Office of Policy and Planning and the various cabinet committees it serves, id. at iv, in this function. The clear implication is that in accordance with its intent, the SDGP is being used to help guide state investment policies, capital growth strategies, and overall programmatic policies. The SDGP has been used, since 1977, by the Division in its review of and for its comments on applications for federal assistance processed through the Project Notification and Review System. SDGP at iii. This is a system designed to obtain comments that will enable the federal government to determine whether its grant programs are in conflict with comprehensive planning projects of regions and states, to what extent in conflict, all for the purpose of determining whether or not to approve or reject an application, or to attach varying conditions to it. Many of the projects for which federal aid is sought are development-inducing (sewage construction, roads, water treatment, etc.); they may determine as much as any other governmental policy where residential development will occur and where it will not. A brochure issued by the Division in September 1981 notes that its review of a federal aid application is to determine, among other things, the application's conformance with the State Development Guide Plan as mandated by the federal legislation. Case studies in the brochure show the extent to which the SDGP's classification of the State into growth areas and others has actually been used in influencing decisions affecting the State's development. [14] The lessons of history are clear, even if rarely learned. One of those lessons is that unplanned growth has a price: natural resources are destroyed, open spaces are despoiled, agricultural land is rendered forever unproductive, and people settle without regard to the enormous cost of the public facilities needed to support them. Cities decay; established infrastructures deteriorate for lack of funds; and taxpayers shudder under a financial burden of public expenditures resulting in part from uncontrolled migration to anywhere anyone wants to settle, roads leading to places they should never be  a pattern of total neglect of sensible conservation of resources, funds, prior public investment, and just plain common sense. These costs in New Jersey, the most highly urbanized state in the nation, are staggering, and our knowledge of our limited ability to support them has become acute. More than money is involved, for natural and man-made physical resources are irreversibly damaged. Statewide comprehensive planning is no longer simply desirable, it is a necessity recognized by both the federal and state governments. Based on all of the foregoing, we are able to fashion judicial relief through means not available to us when we established the developing municipality remedial doctrine. These considerations, founded in sound public policy relating to comprehensive planning, are compelling in favor of a remedial solution that imposes the Mount Laurel obligation only in those areas designated as growth areas by the SDGP. For reasons shortly to be noted, we have decided to allow some limited variation from that rule. The point here is that we see every reason to modify what is generally regarded as one of the doctrines of Mount Laurel I, namely, that the Mount Laurel obligation applies only in developing municipalities, and no reason, either in the constitutional doctrine or in the Mount Laurel case itself, not to do so. That we are not inhibited by the Constitution from making this change is apparent when one analyzes the constitutional obligation itself. Mount Laurel I held that in the exercise of the zoning power a municipality could not constitutionally limit to its own citizens those whose housing needs it would consider, but was required to consider the housing needs of all of the citizens of the region of which that municipality was a part. Put differently, the zoning power that the State exercised through its municipalities would have constitutional validity only if regional housing needs were addressed by the actions of the municipalities in the aggregate. The method selected by this Court in Mount Laurel I for achieving that constitutionally mandated goal was to impose the obligation on those municipalities that were developing. Clearly, however, the method adopted was simply a judicial remedy to redress a constitutional injury. Achievement of the constitutional goal, rather than the method of relief selected to achieve it, was the constitutional requirement. Since our imposition of the Mount Laurel obligation on municipalities containing growth areas as defined by the SDGP (rather than on developing municipalities) is just as clearly related to achieving the constitutional goal, it is equally constitutionally valid. Furthermore, it is significantly preferable for other reasons. The constitutional obligation of the State of New Jersey in exercising its zoning power through its municipal subdivisions to provide a realistic opportunity for lower income housing for its citizens can just as well be met by requiring housing in municipalities in conformance with sound planning concepts as with judicially devised characterizations that may or may not advance other important policies of the state. As this Court pointed out in Mount Laurel I, it might be sounder to have one municipality in the region have more lower income housing than another because of greater availability of suitable land, location of employment, accessibility of public transportation or some other significant reason  in other words for the combination of reasons that add up to a sound planning decision. Though it might be sounder, we reluctantly concluded that every municipality [in a region] must bear its fair share of the regional burden. 67 N.J. at 189 (emphasis supplied). We thought then that our hands were tied, that we could not distribute the Mount Laurel obligation in accordance with sound planning criteria both because of the method of distributing the tax burden in New Jersey and because zoning was not permitted on a regional basis. Id. at 189 & n. 22. Today, however, zoning in accordance with regional considerations is not only permissible, it is mandated as noted above. Furthermore, while we are far from achieving tax equality among all the municipalities of the state, our present programs of State aid to education (financed through an income tax that was not in effect at the time of our decision in Mount Laurel I ) are designed to reduce significantly the differential school tax burden between municipalities that accept residential development and those that do not. As we view it, therefore, there is no reason today not to impose the Mount Laurel obligation in accordance with sound planning concepts, no reason in our Constitution to make every municipality a microcosm of the entire state in its housing pattern, and there are persuasive reasons based on sound planning not to do so. The Constitution of the State of New Jersey does not require bad planning. It does not require suburban spread. It does not require rural municipalities to encourage large scale housing developments. It does not require wasteful extension of roads and needless construction of sewer and water facilities for the out-migration of people from the cities and the suburbs. There is nothing in our Constitution that says that we cannot satisfy our constitutional obligation to provide lower income housing and, at the same time, plan the future of the state intelligently. Sound planning requires that municipalities containing growth areas have a Mount Laurel obligation and that, together, all of those municipalities affirmatively provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of sufficient lower income housing to meet the needs of New Jersey's lower income population. And, as among those municipalities containing growth areas, the Constitution does not prohibit further distinctions, some municipalities being required to take more than others because a combination of factors suggests that they are more suitable for such development. The thought that suitability may determine and validate distinctions in uses between municipalities was expressed by Chief Justice Vanderbilt in Duffcon Concrete Products v. Borough of Cresskill, 1 N.J. 509 (1949), one of the first cases to evaluate a zoning ordinance in the context of regional characteristics and needs. There may be inequities between and among these municipalities located within growth areas, as there undoubtedly are between all of them and municipalities outside of growth areas, for the tax and other burdens caused by the location of lower income housing will not be fairly spread. The state, however, has made its decision as to where this development should occur. If location in accordance with that state plan has adverse economic consequences, it would be appropriate for the state, rather than this Court, to correct them. As noted above, we have decided not to make the SDGP the absolute determinant of the locus of the Mount Laurel obligation. Our reluctance to give it conclusive effect is based on the fact that while it has the legitimacy of legislative authorization, the Legislature has neither explicitly authorized its use for Mount Laurel purposes nor mandated that the actual use of land, as permitted in zoning ordinances, conform to the SDGP. Given these circumstances, we deem it prudent to allow parties to attempt to persuade the trial court, in a particular case, that the SDGP should not determine whether the Mount Laurel doctrine applies to the particular municipality involved in the case. While we believe important policy considerations are involved in our decision not to make the SDGP conclusive, we think it even more important to point out that it will be the unusual case that concludes the locus of the Mount Laurel obligation is different from that found in the SDGP. Subject to those cases, we hold that henceforth, only those municipalities containing growth areas as shown on the concept map of the SDGP (or any official revision thereof) shall be subject to the Mount Laurel prospective need obligation. [15] Any party in Mount Laurel litigation seeking a ruling that varies the locus of the Mount Laurel obligation from the SDGP growth areas will have to prove one of the following: (1) accepting the premises of the SDGP, the conclusion that the municipality includes any growth area, or as much growth area as is shown on the concept map, is arbitrary and capricious, or, alternatively, the conclusion that the municipality does not contain any growth area whatsoever is arbitrary and capricious; (2) since the preparation of the concept map (or any revision thereof) the municipality has undergone a significant transformation that renders the SDGP's characterization of it inappropriate, admitting that at the time of the preparation of the SDGP and the concept map (or any revision thereof) the classification of the municipality was correct; or (3) (and this exception shall apply only if the concept map is not revised before January 1, 1985) subsequent to the date of this decision the municipality, containing no growth area, encourages or allows commercial, residential or industrial development or, if it contains some growth area, encourages or allows development outside of that area. The foregoing exceptions will allow a party to have the court impose a Mount Laurel obligation on a municipality that has no growth area as shown on the concept map, or to impose a greater Mount Laurel obligation by, in effect, proving that the growth area should be enlarged, or, conversely, to relieve a municipality from any Mount Laurel obligation even though the concept map shows it as including a growth area, or to diminish the obligation by proving that the growth area shown on the concept map should be cut down. The first exception recognizes the possibility of errors on the part of the planning group that prepared the SDGP. No trial court should, however, simply substitute its judgment for the state's planners' under that exception. Not only must the evidence show that the conclusion and the classification were arbitrary and capricious, but the party challenging the characterization must contend with the obvious fact that lines must be drawn somewhere and that merely to show that one municipality containing a growth area is remarkably similar to a neighboring one that includes no growth area is not enough: the party must show that it was arbitrary and capricious not to place the line somewhere else. The second exception requires proof of substantial change. Those who prepared the SDGP and the concept map obviously realized that conditions would change after its publication, that planning is a dynamic process, and that plans like the SDGP must remain current. Changes, therefore, sufficient to warrant reclassification of a municipality in whole or in part should be addressed not by the court, but by the Division when it revises the SDGP. The second exception, however, recognizes the possibility that prior to such a revision a municipality may change sufficiently so that it is inappropriate to retain its present SDGP classification. If a municipality that is substantially rural changes only to the extent of an added industrial use and a fairly large residential subdivision, that might or might not constitute a substantial change, depending on all of the circumstances; if in addition there was further development of its infrastructure and several new substantial places of work and residential subdivisions, that municipality's SDGP classification should probably be changed. Furthermore, if the trial court finds that subsequent to the date of this decision the municipality has encouraged or allowed development, it should more readily conclude that the challenged SDGP non-growth characterization has become inappropriate. We do not intend to allow the SDGP to be used as a wall behind which municipalities may create or expand exclusionary developments. The third exception recognizes that if the planning process does not remain a continuing one, the categories set forth in the SDGP might become unrealistic and certainly would lose a considerable degree of their legitimacy. It is one thing for a court to defer to the judgment of the planners, even where it disagrees; it is another to defer to a document that is clearly out of date where deferral might frustrate a constitutional obligation. In order for it to remain a viable remedial standard, we believe that the SDGP should be revised no later than January 1, 1985 (and, in the absence of proof of a more appropriate period, every three years thereafter). [16] If it is not, then courts shall have considerable discretion to vary the locus of the Mount Laurel obligation from that shown on the present SDGP concept map. For instance, if, after the date of this decision, a municipality containing no growth area allows the construction of a significant industrial use creating significant employment opportunities, that would be sufficient to justify a court in imposing a Mount Laurel remedy on that municipality as if a portion of it had been characterized as growth area; the same conclusion would follow if such a municipality, after the date of this decision, encourages or allows the construction of a residential subdivision, or if, though unsuccessful, it attempts to attract development of either kind or of a commercial nature. Such relative ease of variance from the SDGP shall cease, however, when the SDGP is thereafter brought up to date by a future revision. We believe that this use of the SDGP is the best way to satisfy the requirements of our Constitution consistent with the requirements of sound planning. If events indicate, however, that this new direction given to the Mount Laurel doctrine is somehow inadequate, or needs further revision or refinement, the Court remains open to any party to advance such a contention. While there are numerous advantages to certainty in this area, it is much too complex to be dogmatic about almost anything. Flexibility is needed here, for our work is partially legislative in character. We do it not by choice, but because of our understanding of our Constitution and the Legislature's failure to act. As noted before, all municipalities' land use regulations will be required to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of their fair share of the region's present lower income housing need generated by present dilapidated or overcrowded lower income units, including their own. Municipalities located in growth areas may, of course, have an obligation to meet the present need of the region that goes far beyond that generated in the municipality itself; there may be some municipalities, however, in growth areas where the portion of the region's present need generated by that municipality far exceeds the municipality's fair share. The portion of the region's present need that must be addressed by municipalities in growth areas will depend, then, on conventional fair share analysis, some municipality's fair share being more than the present need generated within the municipality and in some cases less. In non-growth areas, however (limited growth, conservation, and agricultural), no municipality will have to provide for more than the present need generated within the municipality, for to require more than that would be to induce growth in that municipality in conflict with the SDGP. It is our intention by this decision generally to channel the entire prospective lower income housing need in New Jersey into growth areas. It is clear that that is what the SDGP intends and there is nothing to indicate that those areas are not more than sufficient to accommodate such growth for the foreseeable future. [17] The SDGP does not purport to apply its growth, limited growth, conservation and agricultural classifications to lands subject to the jurisdiction of the Division of Coastal Resources under the Coastal Area Facility Review Act, N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 to -21, or the Pinelands Commission under the Pinelands Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 to -29. While the maps that form part of the SDGP and some of its text suggest such classification, [18] it is clear that the Division intended to defer to these operational state planning agencies. In referring to the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act and its administration, the SDGP notes that the designations and growth patterns recommended by the Department of Environmental Protection ... have been incorporated. SDGP at 43. As for the Pinelands, it states that [t]he Concept Map classifies the entire Pinelands Area as Conservation. When an approved management plan has been completed by the Pinelands Commission, appropriate amendments to the Guide Plan and the Concept Map will be made. SDGP at 67. In the case of both the Pinelands and Coastal Areas, state agencies have been created with direct responsibility and power to classify areas for purposes of encouraging and discouraging growth, indeed with power to prohibit it completely. Our review of the present plans and policies of both the Division of Coastal Resources and the Pinelands Commission indicates that their classification process is well-advanced and most complex. Since the relationship of the work of these agencies, and of their classification of the area subject to their jurisdiction, to the SDGP was neither argued nor briefed, we decline to decide in this litigation which municipalities within their bounds are subject to the Mount Laurel doctrine. Trial judges in Mount Laurel cases involving municipalities located either in the Pinelands or the coastal zone shall consider in detail the classification systems involved to determine whether imposition of the Mount Laurel doctrine would be consistent with the regional planning goals of the agency, and whether the constitutional obligation will under any circumstances override those goals. We realize that the construction of lower income housing in these coastal and pinelands areas where the Mount Laurel doctrine does apply will require approvals of agencies in addition to the municipality, that the approval procedure can be difficult and time consuming, and that what may appear as a realistic opportunity in a zoning ordinance may turn out not to be so by virtue of the position or regulations of the Division or Commission. These complexities necessarily arise from this double-layered system of municipal and state agency regulation designed to assure the greatest protection and coherence in the development of these highly sensitive environmental areas. [19] Given the remedial function now assigned by this Court to the SDGP in determining the imposition of the Mount Laurel obligation, its admission in evidence in particular litigation poses no evidentiary problems whatsoever. It is admissible subject to Evid.R. 67 which requires [a]uthentication of the original or a copy of a writing ... before it may be received in evidence. See also Evid.R. 63(15). Once the document is thus proven to be the authentic State Development Guide Plan, no hearsay problems exist. The document is not introduced to prove the truth of any fact contained in it. It is introduced because the Plan itself is a fact. By virtue of our opinion today, the State Development Guide Plan's delineation of growth areas will in most cases conclusively determine the existence and location for the imposition of the Mount Laurel obligation. [20] Our use of the State Development Guide Plan for the purpose of determining where Mount Laurel applies does not, of course, guarantee that lower income housing will be constructed in the future solely pursuant to this comprehensive rational plan for the development of New Jersey. It simply tends to assure that the judiciary will not contribute to irrational development, discordant with the state's own vision of its future, by encouraging it in areas that the state has concluded should not be developed, areas more suitable for other purposes, or by inadvertently leading municipalities to encourage lower income housing in such areas. There is nothing, however, that prevents municipalities from encouraging growth, including residential growth, in areas designated by the SDGP as limited growth, agricultural or conservation areas. Uninhibited by any statutory restrictions, municipalities may, for a variety of reasons, plan their future in a manner totally inconsistent with the state's plan, bringing factories, retail shopping centers, large-scale housing developments, including lower income housing, into areas where their presence runs completely counter to the objectives of the SDGP. Except for protective legislation (such as that pertaining to the Pinelands and certain coastal areas) limited to particular ecologically sensitive areas, the state has imposed no proscriptions against development. While conformity of the constitutional obligation to the design of the Plan unquestionably advances the state's purpose, the absence of such proscriptions against development may, in the long run, undermine the regional planning objectives of the SDGP whether we limit the Mount Laurel obligation to growth areas or not. [21]