Opinion ID: 2339947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: borough of bernardsville

Text: This action challenging Bernardsville's zoning ordinance results from a complaint filed on June 20, 1983, by a Borough landowner who was refused rezoning to allow building a senior citizen housing project at a density of twelve units per acre on her land. The complaint sought a builder's remedy of twenty units per acre. On August 3 and December 20, 1983, case management conferences were held, a Master was appointed, and after negotiations a partial settlement was executed in February 1984. The settlement awarded plaintiffs a builder's remedy fixing a density of nine units per acre for a total of seventy-six units and granted an immunity order, which has been continued to date. On January 14, 1985, the Borough presented its compliance plan. On February 7, 1985, a second report from the Special Master was submitted to assist the court in formulating the Borough's compliance package. On a March 18, 1985 public hearing, a new ordinance was adopted, and on April 30, 1985, a Master's report was submitted that supported the proposed compliance package. This new compliance package called for the Borough itself actually to build 178 lower income units. To build the units, the Borough sought plaintiff's land. On August 21, 1985, plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that under the circumstances Bernardsville did not have authority to condemn the land, and the Borough cross-moved to vacate plaintiff's builder's remedy. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion. The cross-motion was heard in conjunction with defendant's motion to transfer to the Council and is still undecided. Remaining in this matter is the complete resolution of the cross-motions made in August, a compliance hearing, and if modified, readoption of the compliance package. The claim of manifest injustice resulting from a transfer to the Council includes the delay in providing lower income housing, the loss by plaintiff of a vested right in the builder's remedy, an inherent unfairness in the retroactive application of the Act, and the need for plaintiff to relitigate a remedy already consented to by the defendant with the attendant delay and expense.