Opinion ID: 2365726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Remedy and Remand

Text: We herewith modify the judgment entered in the Law Division to hold, as we did in Mount Laurel as to the ordinance there involved, that the 1973 zoning ordinance is invalid, not in toto, but only to the extent and in the particulars set forth in this opinion. Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. at 191. For the reasons elaborated above the ordinance is presumptively contrary to the general welfare and beyond the scope of zoning power in the particulars mentioned. Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. at 185. The municipality has not borne its consequent burden of establishing valid reasons for the deficiencies of the ordinance. Id. at 185. It is obvious that a revision of the residential provisions of the ordinance is called for in order to provide the opportunity for that amount of least-cost housing in the township which will comply with the directions contained in this opinion. In Mount Laurel we elected not to impose direct judicial supervision of compliance with the judgment in view of the advanced view of zoning law as applied to housing laid down by [the] opinion. 67 N.J. at 192. The present case is different. The basic law is by now settled. Further, the defendant was correctly advised by the trial court as to its responsibilities in respect of regional housing needs in October 1971, over five years ago. 117 N.J. Super. 11. It came forth with an amended ordinance which has been found to fall short of its obligation. Considerations bearing upon the public interest, justice to plaintiffs and efficient judicial administration preclude another generalized remand for another unsupervised effort by the defendant to produce a satisfactory ordinance. The focus of the judicial effort after six years of litigation must now be transferred from theorizing over zoning to assurance of the zoning opportunity for production of least cost housing. See Mytelka and Mytelka Exclusionary Zoning: A Consideration of Remedies, 7 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1, 18, 23 (1975). The trial court on remand shall execute the directions in IX and XII above and render its findings thereon with the reasonable dispatch appropriate to the age of this litigation. It shall become the obligation of the defendant, within 90 days thereafter, unless more time is allowed by the trial court, to submit to the trial court for its approval a revised ordinance. The revision shall zone, in the manner specified in this opinion, to create the opportunity for a fair and reasonable share of the least cost housing needs of Madison's region, the concept of region to be understood as generally set forth in II and VIII hereinabove. While no formulaic determination or numerical specification of such a fair and reasonable share is required, we do not preclude it if the municipal planning advisors deem it useful. The revision shall, as minima : (a) allocate substantial areas for single-family dwellings on very small lots; (b) substantially enlarge the areas for dwellings on moderate sized lots; (c) substantially enlarge the AF district or create other enlarged multi-family zones; (d) reduce the RP, R-80 and R-40 zones to the extent necessary to effect the foregoing, subject to the directions in IX, supra; (e) modify the restrictions in the AF zones and PUD areas discussed hereinabove which discourage the construction of apartments of more than two bedrooms; (f) modify the PUD regulations to eliminate the undue cost-generating requirements specified above; and (g) generally eliminate and reduce undue cost-generating restrictions in the zones allocated to the achievement of lower income housing in accordance with the principles of least cost zoning set forth in V hereinabove. The trial court shall have discretion, in the event of undue delay in compliance with this opinion or of a finding by the court that any zoning revision submitted by defendant fails to comply with this opinion, to appoint an impartial zoning and planning expert or experts. Such expert may be directed to file a report or to testify, as the court may deem appropriate, as to a recommendation for the achievement by defendant of compliance with this opinion or with any further directions by the court pursuant thereto. See Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. at 216 (Pashman, J., concurring); Pascack Assoc. v. Mayor, Coun. Tp. of Washington, 131 N.J. Super. 195 (Law. Div. 1974); Mytelka and Mytelka, Exclusionary Zoning: A Consideration of Remedies. 7 Seton Hall L.J. 1, 31 (1975); Hartman, Beyond Invalidation: The Judicial Power to Zone, 9 Urban L. An. 159, 171-173 (1975); Rubinowitz, Exclusionary Zoning: A Wrong in Search of a Remedy's, 6 Mich. J.L. Ref. 625, 656-657 (1973). Judgment modified, and affirmed as modified; no costs. PASHMAN, J., concurring and dissenting.