Opinion ID: 2365370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Prior and Present Litigation

Text: This action represents the second Mount Laurel suit initiated against defendant. West Windsor, supra, 303 N.J.Super. at 529, 697 A. 2d 201. Previously, [o]n March 14, 1984, Affordable Living Corporation had instituted exclusionary zoning litigation against [West Windsor] that resulted in a [1984 judgment] establishing defendant's fair share at 1,619 low and moderate income units. Ibid. In 1985, that number was reduced to 1,453 units, and later, on October 14, 1986, the 1985 judgment was modified to conform West Windsor's fair share housing obligation to that established by [COAH]592 units. [4] West Windsor, supra, 303 N.J.Super. at 529, 697 A. 2d 201. To meet its original obligation, West Windsor adopted a housing plan and various conforming zoning amendments. The amendments addressed issues such as common open space, density and residential-type distribution, affordable unit distribution and locational criteria, and expedited review of low and moderate income developments. New zones EH (Elderly Housing), and R3A, R4A, and R4B (Residence Districts) were added, and eleven sites were zoned for inclusionary development as follows: Sites 1 and 5A (120 affordable units), Sites 2 and 8 (312 affordable units), Site 3 (twenty affordable units), Site 4 (thirty-four affordable units), Site 5 (100 affordable units), Site 6 (the Toll Brothers property527 affordable units), [5] Site 7 (forty affordable units), Site A (102 affordable units), and Site B (206 affordable units). Those eleven sites were to provide a realistic opportunity for the development of 1,461 affordable housing units. Also, under the compliance plan West Windsor agreed to rehabilitate thirty-seven existing dwellings that, in the main, consisted of multi-family units. Id. at 532-33, 697 A. 2d 201. In all, the plan provided for the potential development of 1,498 affordable units generally consisting of multi-family housing. [6] As described by the trial court in the opinion below, the plan rel[ied] almost exclusively on multi-family housing as the vehicle for development of inclusionary projects. Conventional single-family detached housing [was] generally not permitted in the inclusionary zones. The single-family detached housing that [was] permitted either must be located in a specialty zone, or it must be a novel product, e.g., zero lot-line homes[,] ... where one side of the house is windowless and lies directly on a side lot-line. [ Id. at 554, 697 A. 2d 201.] In October 1985, the compliance plan was memorialized in a Judgment of Compliance and Repose, id. at 529, 697 A. 2d 201, which was to remain effective for six years.
On May 12, 1993, Toll Brothers filed this lawsuit alleging that West Windsor had engaged in a pattern of exclusionary zoning in violation of the New Jersey Constitution as interpreted in the Mount Laurel cases and the FHA. Ibid. West Windsor's period of repose under the 1985 judgment had expired on July 21, 1991, and West Windsor had not applied to COAH for interim certification. Id. at 529-30, 697 A. 2d 201. If granted interim certification, West Windsor would have been required to continue implementing the terms of the 1985 judgment and would have continued to enjoy the same measure of protection from litigation that was provided by that judgment. Id. at 529 n. 1, 697 A. 2d 201 (citing N.J.A.C. 5:92-1.6(d) and 5:91-14). West Windsor nonetheless continued to implement the 1985 court-approved plan, id. at 526, 697 A. 2d 201, which remained in effect essentially unchanged, until late summer 1994. Id. at 531, 697 A. 2d 201. Of the eleven sites included in the 1985 judgment, however, only two actually had been developed by the time Toll Brothers instituted its Mount Laurel challengethe Windsor Haven property (Site 3 from the 1985 judgment), which produced thirty seven for-sale condominium units, and Steward's Watch (Site A from the 1985 judgment), which yielded 102 rental units. Ibid. During roughly the same period (1982-1994), however, a massive amount of development of conventional single-family detached homes ha[d] occurred in non inclusionary zones. Id. at 553, 697 A. 2d 201. Specifically, the number of houses in West Windsor Township more than doubled, increasing from 2,907 units to 6,115 units, with the purchasers generally moving into high-priced, large-lot, single-family houses. Id. at 526, 697 A. 2d 201. Toll Brothers argued that West Windsor's poor development rate for the construction of affordable housing was due to a variety of factors, including: (1) the severe impact of environmental constraints ( e.g., freshwater wetlands, freshwater wetlands buffers, and floodplain areas) on the developability of the sites zoned for affordable housing; (2) West Windsor's unduly cost-generative public sewer policies that required developers of inclusionary sites to provide and front the high costs of oversized and expensive gravity flow sewer systems; (3) public resistance to, and application processing delays regarding, development of sites zoned for affordable housing (highlighted by the testimony of plaintiff's expert, who also had been the planner for the former owner, that when attempting to obtain development approval from the West Windsor Planning Board the developer was subjected to over fifty public hearings in three-and-one-half years, a delay that the trial court, in October 1987, found to be `unjustified,' `purposeful or unexcusable'), id. at 535-36, 697 A. 2d 201; (4) West Windsor's failure, in its zoning of affordable housing sites, to include conventional single-family houses on small lots despite the demonstrated strong market demand for such units; and (5) West Windsor's other restrictive zoning standards and cost-generative ordinances, such as the requirement that 175 senior citizen affordable units be built on the Toll Brothers site without regard to the number of market units built, id. at 536, 697 A. 2d 201, as well as ordinances establishing the set-aside of an unreasonable amount of common open and recreational space. Ibid. As the trial court summarized, plaintiff asks this court to look beyond the face of defendant's assertedly inclusionary zoning. It asks for consideration of numerous factorsenvironment, infrastructure, market demand, municipal policy and other zoning-related factorsfor a finding that defendant is deficient in its affirmative duty under the Mount Laurel cases. It asks for a builder's remedy to permit development of its property in a more cost-effective, market-responsive manner than defendant's current zoning allows.