Opinion ID: 1909441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: New Jersey Statutory Scheme

Text: New Jersey's statutory scheme generally follows that outlined above. Article 5, containing the official-map sections of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), establishes that a municipality's governing body may by ordinance adopt or amend an official map of the municipality, which shall reflect the appropriate provisions of any municipal master plan ... N.J.S.A. 40:55D-32. The official map is defined by the MLUL simply as a map adopted by ordinance pursuant to article 5. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-5. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-32, particularly the second paragraph, is the focus of this appeal. The governing body may by ordinance adopt or amend an official map of the municipality ...         The official map shall be deemed conclusive with respect to the location and width of streets and public drainage ways and the location and extent of flood control basins and public areas, whether or not such streets, ways, basins or areas are improved or unimproved or are in actual physical existence. Upon receiving an application for development, the municipality may reserve for future public use, the aforesaid streets, ways, basins, and areas in the manner provided in [ N.J.S.A. 40:55D-44]. [ L. 1975, c. 291, § 32, eff. Aug. 1, 1976.] Until now, we have not directly considered this statute. However, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the predecessor statute, N.J.S.A. 40:55-1.32, commonly known as the Official Map Act, in Lomarch Corporation v. Mayor of Englewood, 51 N.J. 108, 237 A. 2d 881 (1968). In Lomarch, the Lomarch Corporation sought approval of a subdivision on a sixteen-acre plot of land. While the application was under consideration, the municipality amended its official map to show the entire tract as land reserved for use as a park. The municipality granted approval of the subdivision, but warned that `The applicant is acting solely at its own peril since the applicant is on notice that this property has been reserved by the [municipality]' for a one-year period. Id. at 111, 237 A. 2d 881. Lomarch alleged that the municipality was effectively depriving it of the use of its property without compensation because the municipality sought to reserve the property for park land acquisition for a one-year period. The Court in Lomarch sustained the Official Map Act, relying on the presumption of constitutionality accorded to legislative acts. It also emphasized that unilateral reservation of land by a municipality brought with it the implied duty and obligation to make payment of adequate compensation to the landowner for the temporary taking and his deprivation of use. Id. at 113, 237 A. 2d 881. Lomarch thus suggests that a takings violation results unless the municipality compensates a landowner whose property the municipality seeks to reserve for some public purpose. In contrast to official maps, master plans have received extensive consideration from legal commentators and the courts. In New Jersey, the master plan is the centerpiece of land use planning. Pursuant to the MLUL, it is a composite of one or more written or graphic proposals for the development of the municipality. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-5. It may be adopted by a municipal planning board only after a public hearing. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-28. Its required contents are numerous and detailed. Ibid. Its influence is also far-reaching; indeed, the land use and housing elements of a master plan must be adopted before a municipality adopts a zoning ordinance, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62, and a zoning ordinance inconsistent with or not designed to effectuate the land use and housing plan elements of the master plan must be accompanied by a resolution explaining the inconsistency. Id. Over fifty years ago, the Court of Errors and Appeals first upheld the constitutionality of New Jersey's first master-plan-enabling statute. At that time, Justice Heher already recognized the importance of the planning power for promoting the general welfare. The state possesses the inherent authority  it antedates the constitution  to resort, in the building and expansion of its community life, to such measures as may be necessary to secure the essential common material and moral needs. The public welfare is of prime importance; and the correlative restrictions upon individual rights  either of person or of property  are incidents of the social order, considered a negligible loss compared with the resultant advantages to the community as a whole.... A comprehensive scheme of physical development is requisite to community efficiency and progress. [ Mansfield & Swett, Inc. v. West Orange, 120 N.J.L. 145, 150, 198 A. 225 (1938).] Various provisions of the MLUL, including a requirement that the master plan be examined and updated regularly, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-89, reflect the continuing importance of the master plan.